Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Taunton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday, 26th March.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the Trustees and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds and the trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the prayer:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. McGOVERN: Let them go on a hunger march.

Referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (MEDICAL INSPECTION).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, seeing that the regulations of the service call for an annual inspection of the medical fitness of officers, he will consider issuing instructions that such inspection shall, in the case of general officers, be held either by an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps at least equal in rank or by a civilian medical practitioner?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): It is not considered desirable to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend in view of the practical difficulties that it would involve.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Is it not unnatural to expect a junior officer to give an unfavourable report on a senior officer?

Mr. COOPER: No, I do not think so.

Brigadier-General NATION: Is it not a fact that the number of general officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps is very small, and that they are almost entirely employed in administrative duties.

Mr. COOPER: That is the reason why the practical difficulties would be so great.

MARRIED QUARTERS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. HICKS): 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of money that has been spent to provide separate lavatory accommodation in married quarters during the past two years; the number of lavatories provided; and the number that still have to be built to secure separate accommodation for each family?

Mr. COOPER: This information is not available at the War Office, but I have called for reports and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they have been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

ILLEGAL TRAWL AND SEINE FISHING.

Mr. BURNETT: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the range and average amount of penalties imposed in cases of illegal trawling and illegal seine-net fishing, respectively, within Scottish waters, for the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Illegal Trawling.


Year.
Range of penalties.
Average penalty.


1931
…
…
£50 to £100
£95


1932
…
…
£30 to £100
£77


1933
…
…
£25 to £100
£73


Illegal Seining.


1931
…
…
£2 to £25
£12


1932
…
…
£5 to £20
£11


1933
…
…
£3 to £50
£17

In comparing the penalties for these different offences it must be borne in mind that the majority of the boats implicated in illegal seining are of small size, and are not in any way comparable with trawlers in respect of catching power. Moreover, of the total convictions for seining all were first offences except seven second offences. In those for trawling there were seven second offences, six third offences, two fourth offences, one fifth offence, and one eighth offence.

HERRING (EXPORTS).

Captain JAMES MacANDREW: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the percentage of the herring recently caught in the Clyde that have been sold for export and to what countries they have been sold?

Mr. SKELTON: Of approximately 100,000 crans of herring taken in the Clyde area between the beginning of October and the middle of this month about 50 per cent. has been exported fresh. Apart from a small quantity sent to Holland, this export was entirely to Germany. About 9,000 crans have been
cured. I am unable to say how much of this quantity has been sold, but I understand that foreign markets are expected to account for 7,000 crans, representing 7 per cent. of the total catch.

POLICE (GAZETTE).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the views of the police authorities in Scotland as to the establishment of a Police Gazette on lines similar to that issued by Scotland Yard?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend has not yet received replies from all the police authorities, but he is in communication with the outstanding cases.

TEACHERS (OPTIONAL RETIRING AGE).

Mr. MAXTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, having regard to the large number of young teachers unable to obtain appointments, he will make arrangements by which the optional age for retiring on superannuation allowance may be lowered?

Mr. SKELTON: There are serious difficulties in the way of adopting the policy suggested by the hon. Member. Actuarial considerations demand that, if benefits are to be payable on retirement before the age of 60, they should be materially restricted in amount, apart from the automatic reduction due to the shorter period of contributory service. It is, therefore, improbable that a modification of the Superannuation Scheme in that direction and on an optional basis would lead any appreciable number of teachers to retire at an earlier age.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the Secretary of State gone into this matter fully to see if something could not be done along those lines?

Mr. SKELTON: The considerations to which I have referred have been before us, and I do not know that much further action or thought can be given to the matter. The considerations I have mentioned seem to be of great weight.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are in Scotland now many young teachers unable to receive appointments and a considerable number of senior teachers who are ready to retire, provided reasonable arrangements can be made for them?

DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions for drunkenness there have been in Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and how many of the convictions each year were attributed to the drinking of methylated spirit and surgical spirit?

Mr. SKELTON: I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In the 10 years ending 31st December, 1932, the numbers of persons convicted in Scotland of offences involving drunkenness were as follow:

Year.






1923
…
…
…
13,647


1924
…
…
…
14,051


1925
…
…
…
13,375


1926
…
…
…
12,369


1927
…
…
…
12,471


1928
…
…
…
11,944


1929
…
…
…
11,930


1930
…
…
…
10,848


1931
…
…
…
10,202


1932
…
…
…
9,788

The above figures do not afford an accurate measure of the total number of offences involving drunkenness, as the element of drunkenness may have been present in many cases where another offence (e.g., breach of the peace) was charged.

It is not possible to state the total number of persons who were in each of these years convicted of offences involving drunkenness due to the drinking of methylated spirits (including surgical spirit). Returns obtained in respect of six burghs (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Perth, Inverness, and Stirling) show that in these burghs the numbers of convictions for such offences were as follow:

Year ended 30th April.




1924
…
…
…
1,497


1925
…
…
…
985


1926
…
…
…
1,088


1927
…
…
…
969


1928
…
…
…
969


1929
…
…
…
1,017


1930
…
…
…
963


1931
…
…
…
1,031


1932
…
…
…
1,106


1933
…
…
…
1,002

These figures include a considerable proportion of repeated convictions in respect of the same persons.

TAX COLLECTORS' ACCOUNTS (AUDIT).

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, in the course of a recent prosecution for embezzlement of a collector of taxes at Banff Sheriff Court, evidence was given that the accused during the 15 years of his appointment was entirely without the benefit of a proper audit; whether he is aware that public uneasiness has been created by this case and other similar ones; and whether he is taking any steps to prevent the recurrence of such frauds?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The accounts of collectors are balanced annually and on balancing are subjected to audit tests which, in the case in question, were successful in bringing the default to light. While no system of audit and accounting can prevent defaults, or do more than ensure as far as possible that they are quickly detected, I am not satisfied that the arrangements in Scotland are the best that are practicable, and the whole matter at the present time is under inquiry by the Board of Inland Revenue.

Sir M. WOOD: May we take it that it is correct to say that this man's books were not audited for 15 years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think that is a correct statement of the case. The practice in Scotland is exactly as I have said in my answer.

Sir M. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a statement of this kind is not made without the counsel for the Treasury showing whether it is true or not? Is it not likely to cause public uneasiness that a statement of this kind should go out uncontradicted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If I have not contradicted it, I have given a true account of what has taken place. I further stated that I am not satisfied that the arrangements in Scotland are satisfactory and that that matter is under careful inquiry. I think that that will go some way to satisfy public uneasiness.

COAL INDUSTRY (COKE PRODUCTION).

Brigadier-General NATION: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can
make any statement to the House on the subject of the recent meeting of representatives of the Coke Producers' Association with his Department in regard to the coke position in this country?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): At my request a meeting took place at the Mines Department on 15th February with representatives of the metallurgical coke producing industry, when the question of supplies of metallurgical coke both for the home market and for export was discussed. Assurances were given to me that there is at present no shortage of metallurgical coke, and that additional capacity could be brought into operation should an increased demand arise at a remunerative price.

Brigadier-General NATION: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the production of coke in this country is sufficient to meet the demand?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, Sir.

IRISH FREE STATE (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. RONALD ROSS: 9 and 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he is aware of the proposed addition to the armed forces of the Irish Free State; and whether he can give any particulars as to the numbers, arms, and uniform of the proposed new force;
(2) whether he has any knowledge as to the purpose of the proposed increase of armaments by the Irish Free State; and what is its effect with relation to violation of Article 8 of the Treaty?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have seen reports of statements made on behalf of the Free State Government regarding the proposed organisation of a new volunteer force in the Irish Free State, as part of a scheme for a reorganisation of the Defence Force on the basis of a small army backed by a volunteer force. According to the above statements it is contemplated that the new force should consist of all arms with a uniform of a grey-green colour and be organised on a basis roughly corresponding to that of the territorial force in this country. I have no definite information as to the in-
tended size of the new volunteer force, but I understand that a possible immediate strength of 10,000 has been mentioned. No question involving Article 8 of the Treaty would seem to arise so long as the total forces maintained by the Government of the Irish Free State are within the limits contemplated by that Article.

Mr. ROSS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know on what pattern that uniform is designed; and, further, can he say whether this scheme does not involve a very material increase in the armed forces of the Irish Free State?

Mr. THOMAS: I have answered on the information at my disposal at the moment. I do not contemplate it as being a violation of the Article mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATIES.

Mr. CHORLTON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the further recommendations made by trade bodies that the most-favoured-nation treaties be denounced in whole or in part, if he proposes to take any action?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to my two recent letters to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce which have been published, and of which I am sending him copies, and to the answers to certain questions put to me in this House on the 1st and 22nd February, of which I am also sending him copies.

Mr. CHORLTON: Are there not a number of trades concerned outside those connected with cotton and Manchester; and will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as a whole, and not as dealing with any one trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understood that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce were looking into this question on the broadest basis and were not restricting their inquiries to the cotton industry.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May we take it that, apart from the activities of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade itself has examined this matter and that it will be prepared to
act, if necessary, to deal with the situation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I think I have said in answer to questions again and again in this House, that we have it constantly under review, and in every case where our trade relations with other countries crop up, we examine the problem afresh.

LATVIA (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. LIDDALL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports from Latvia in 1933 were 122 per cent. greater than our total exports to that country; and what steps he proposes to take to bring about a favourable modification in respect of the import restrictions imposed by Latvia?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend calls attention. The position greatly improved, however, in 1933, as compared with previous years and it is the object of His Majesty's Government in the commercial negotiations now taking place, to secure further improvement.

Mr. LIDDALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that firms in my constituency are very seriously affected by the present state of affairs; and is he prepared to receive representations from me on the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I should be very glad to receive any information which my hon. Friend has to give me.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects the negotiations with Latvia to be completed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.

Sir M. WOOD: Do not these figures refer to visible exports and imports, and, as such, are they not a misleading index of the trade which is going on between these countries?

RUBBER FOOTWEAR (IMPORTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries of consignment in respect of the 160 dozen pairs of rubber footwear imported from British countries, other than Canada, in January, 1933, and the
19,226 dozen pairs so consigned in January, 1934; and if he can give any reason for the great increase?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the reply to the first part of the question involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The great bulk of the imports in January, 1934, were consigned from Hong Kong, where, I understand, a number of firms manufacture rubber shoes for export.

Following is the reply:

The countries of consignment of the imports of rubber boots and shoes from British countries registered during January, 1933 and 1934, were as follow:


Country of consignment.
January.


1933.
1934.





Dozen pairs.
Dozen pairs.


British India
…
…
20
417


Straits Settlements and Dependencies (including Labuan).
…
…
136
1,171


Hong Kong
…
…
4
17,630


Newfoundland
…
…
—
8


Total
…
…
160
19,226

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to reverse the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, so as to make compulsory the marking of all foreign goods in a manner which can easily be seen and to compel the foreign importer to apply for exemption from marking?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on 20th February.

Captain STRICKLAND: Has any fresh consideration been given to this urgent matter since then, and what is holding up a decision on the matter?

Mr. CROOKE: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the fact that, if this suggestion were carried into effect, it would materially help to find work for the unemployed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that I can draw that deduction, but there is no reason why we should not have honesty in trade marks.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I have an answer to my question as to whether further consideration has been given to this subject since?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh yes, certainly.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the form of assistance which it is proposed to give to the British shipping industry in order to enable it to compete with foreign shipping subsidies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which were given to the hon. Member for Salford, South (Mr. Stourton) on 29th January and to the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington, South (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on 30th January.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Has my right hon. Friend yet received that information from the shipping people to whom he referred in his previous answers?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, communications have been passing between the shipping organisations and the Board of Trade. I received a communication yesterday, or on Saturday, I think it was, from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and the Chamber of Shipping jointly, and their statement is now under examination.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a further statement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot name a date at present.

Mr. RANKIN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will represent to the oil importing industries that they should consider the employment of British instead of foreign ships for the transport of oil; and how many such foreign ships are now being used regularly by the oil importing industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no reason to think that the oil importing industries are not fully aware of the present posi-
tion of British shipping and of the desirability of giving it all possible support. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the question is not available.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will make representations to all local authorities as to the desirability of ensuring that all materials purchased by them or supplied under contract are, whenever their transport involves the use of coastwise or other shipping, carried in British ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend hopes that local authorities in all cases where it is practicable will make use of British goods and services, whether shipping or otherwise, in providing for the requirements of the areas for which they are responsible.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is my hon. Friend aware that very large quantities of such materials as granite and stone are being conveyed in foreign-owned vessels down the British coast?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That may be, but my information is that the bulk of the materials used for house building are home produced.

INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL FAIR, VIENNA.

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department who will represent the British Government officially at the Vienna International Industrial Fair to be held in March?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have been asked to reply. The official representative of His Majesty's Government during the period of the Vienna Fair will be the head of the Exhibitions Division of the Department of Overseas Trade, who is also director of the British Industries Fair.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman give his name?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, the name is Mr. Claude Taylor.

CONGO BASIN TREATIES.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade What is the present position with regard to reaching a
decision as to the possible abrogation of the Congo Basin Treaties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This question is under consideration. I cannot at present make any statement about it.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "CULMORE."

Mr. ROSS TAYLOR: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if an inquiry has been conducted into the circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "Culmore," off Aldeburgh, on 13th December, 1933; and if official notice has been taken of the promptitude, skill, and courage displayed by the crew of the Aldeburgh lifeboat on that occasion?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "Culmore" on the 13th December last are under investigation. Under the arrangements between the Board of Trade and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution it is left to the latter to deal with services rendered by lifeboat crews and I understand that the institution have made certain awards to the crew of the Aldeburgh lifeboat in recognition of their very gallant attempt to save life on this occasion.

UNEMPLOYMENT (VACANCIES FILLED).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons placed in employment by the Employment Exchanges in 1931, 1932, and 1933, respectively?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The numbers of vacancies filled by Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in Great Britain in these years were as follow:


1931
…
…
…
1,952,057


1932
…
…
…
1,855,841


1933
…
…
…
2,201,028

AGRICULTURE (COLORADO BEETLE).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Colorado beetle pest is gradually spreading north; and what is the latest information received by his Department on this question?

Major GEORGE, DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Colorado beetle has been spreading northwards in France for some years past, but no official details of its advance during 1933 have come to my right hon. Friend's notice. There is no foundation whatever for any suggestion that the beetle is spreading northward in this country, nor any evidence of its appearance here except in the Tilbury district.

WISBECH MAGISTRATES.

Mr. MANDER: 24.
asked the Attorney-General if consideration will be given to the advisability of removing from the bench those magistrates who recently at Wisbech illegally sent five boys to an industrial school?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has already given careful consideration to this matter, and I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 1st February.

Mr. MANDER: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that magistrates who deliberately break the law are suitable for administering justice?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman, so far as my information goes, has no ground whatever for saying that these magistrates have deliberately broken the law. The magistrates undoubtedly made a grave error in their jurisdiction, but I see no reason for treating them as if they had behaved dishonestly or corruptly.

SUNDAY TRADING (BAKERY TRADE).

Mr. LECKIE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take with reference to the representations which he has received from several municipal corporations to prohibit the baking, sale and delivery of bread on Sundays?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) on the 7th December last in regard to amendment of the law
relating to Sunday trading. As I then stated, I am afraid that, so far as the Government are concerned, there is no present prospect of legislation on this subject.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Government to consider bringing in a Bill to keep people from working in any place seven days a week, because that would bring in people who are working in licensed houses?

FOREIGN LOANS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the losses inflicted upon British investors who have lent their savings to the public authorities of Germany and Brazil in long-term loans floated here, he will delegate to suitable members of his Department, independently of the houses which issued the loans, the duty of watching and representing the interests of British nationals now that unilateral decrees of default have been imposed upon them; and will he maintain this organisation to deal with future similar cases of default?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to put a question on a similar subject presently to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that both questions can most conveniently be answered together, and I would therefore ask him to await the reply which my right hon. Friend is about to give.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that 58 foreign States are now in default on their obligations to British subjects and of the non-success of the unofficial organisations and flotation houses to defend effectively the rights of British holders of foreign securities, he will constitute at the Treasury from existing staff, and jointly with the Foreign Office, a permanent department, to act in concert with the flotation houses but independently of them, to defend British holders of foreign investments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have carefully considered the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I do not think that it would be desirable to adopt it. The Treasury and Foreign Office keep a careful watch on these questions, and His Majesty's Government are always ready to consider the question of intervening if there is discrimination against British interests, or if any other special reason for intervention exists.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has there not been discrimination in Germany's payments, and may I ask what has been the good result of the careful attention that the Foreign Office and the Chancellories have paid to this matter in the past?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would probably be aware that at a recent meeting an agreement was come to with the Germans on the subject, and I had every reason to suppose that that was considered to be a very much more satisfactory arrangement to the creditors than existed up till then.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That was an arrangement come to by the creditors and not by the Government. The Government had nothing to do with it, and they can hardly describe it as a satisfactory arrangement.

AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.

Mr. MABANE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the proposed Austro-Hungarian economic union; and if he can give an assurance that His Majesty's Government would welcome such a union?

Sir J. SIMON: No such proposal has been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MABANE: Are His Majesty's Government being kept continuously informed of the conversations between Signor Suvich, Herr Dolfuss, and General Gömbös, in view of the importance of these negotiations?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry, but I did not hear the beginning of the question.

Mr. MABANE: Are His Majesty's Government being kept continuously informed of the conversations that are
taking place with regard to the Italian-Austrian-Hungarian Economic Union?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no doubt that we shall be given all proper information by all proper channels, but I cannot say whether we have immediate information of every detail of what is passing.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT (COMMITTEE).

Mr. MANDER: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if he has now appointed an Advisory Committee in connection with the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932; and if he will state the terms of reference and the names of members?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The arrangements for the appointment of the committee are nearly complete, and the names of the members will be announced shortly. The terms of reference are:
To consider general questions relating to the administration of town and country planning in England and Wales, and any other related matters which may from time to time be referred by the Minister of Health to the committee, and, as occasion may require, to make recommendations to him.

Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that that would cover such questions as national parks? Is it intended to cover them?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should like notice of that question, but my impression is that it would.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister of Health to consider bringing in some Bill immediately to prevent building directly on the high road, which is causing a great many deaths among young children?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that is another question.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 32.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have taken action under the Town and Country Planning Act with regard to the erection and control of petrol pumps and advertisement hoardings?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Forty-five resolutions to prepare schemes have been approved by my right hon. Friend under
the Act. Local authorities may be expected to include in these and in other schemes now in course of preparation provisions for controlling the erection and use of petrol pumps and advertisement hoardings, and it is probable that, pending the coming into operation of the schemes, the authorities are taking action to regulate the erection and use of these structures as and when applications are made for permission to provide them.

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS (DURHAM).

Mr. BATEY: 30 and 31.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that 24 district Poor Law medical officers in the county of Durham are complaining of financial loss, owing to 15,000 unemployed people having had their right to medical benefit stopped; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter;
(2) if he is aware that not less than 15,000 people in the county of Durham have lost their medical benefit as from 31st December, 1933, as a result of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932; and will he consider making some provision so that these people can have medical attention?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: A considerable number of insured persons in the administrative county of Durham have recently lost their title to medical benefit under the Health Insurance Scheme. My right hon. Friend has seen reports in the Press that a number of district medical officers in Durham have made representations to the local authority for an increase of remuneration. This is a matter for the local authority, with whom he is getting into touch as to the position. The district medical service is available for those who are no longer within the insurance scheme.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister has not answered Question 31. As the Government deliberately took medical benefit away from such a large number of people, do they not think the time has now arrived when they should make some other provision for medical benefit for these people?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Our action has been discussed at great length on numerous occasions in the House, and the provisions we have made have been explained.

Mr. BATEY: But seeing that such a long time has elapsed since 1932, when the Government took this step, that there is no improvement in trade, and that there is such a huge number of sufferers, will they not reconsider the question?

HON. MEMBERS: Order.

Mr. MAXTON: Go ahead.

Mr. BATEY: May I have an answer? It is a most important matter.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Gentleman, I think, does not understand that the figures he mentioned are exaggerated, and that in any event only about one-quarter of the true total will require medical benefit. At any rate, provision has been made, and we are sending an inspector to get in touch.

Mr. BATEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures are taken from the medical union, and that he ought to know the number of men who have lost benefit?

Colonel CLIFTON-BROWN: Will my hon. Friend remember that there is a county council election in the county of Durham and that that is possibly the cause of these questions?

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one-quarter of 15,000 people is over 3,000 people in one county who are unable to get adequate medical attention when they are sick?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is not so, for they will get attention from the district medical service, and they will be in the same position as all those outside insurance.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these officers were overworked before this additional work was put on their shoulders, and that it has meant for them an extra job?

Mr. BATEY: May I make a personal statement? The imputation has been made that I brought up this question because of the county council elections. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the county council elections were never in my mind.

PALESTINE (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether any appointment has been made of a successor to Mr. Elliott as public prosecutor in Palestine; and, if so, who has been appointed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The post of Government Advocate, formerly held by the late Mr. Elliott, has been filled by the promotion of an Arab official, Musa Effendi el Alami, who has for some years held the appointment of Assistant Government Advocate and has recently been acting as one of the private secretaries to the High Commissioner.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What? The Grand Vizier. Is the Department aware that this gentleman is the brother-in-law of Jemal Husseini? May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he will inquire in the Department how soon will el Alami Bey get promoted to a post where he has less direct interest?

Mr. MacDONALD: This gentleman has not been appointed through any relationship he may have to anyone else, but because he has the qualifications for the post to which he is appointed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that for the first time an Englishman or a Scotsman has not been appointed to this post?

GOLD BONDS.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the decision announced by him in the House of Commons on 31st July, 1933, on the subject of United Kingdom 5½ per cent. Gold Bonds issued in New York with a gold clause, whether, in view of the subsequent legal decision in another place, which determined, in the case of Feist v. Société Intercommunale Belge d'Electricité, that the holders of bonds containing the gold clause are entitled to be paid the interest and principal thereof in legal tender of the country where the bonds are payable to the full equivalent current value of the gold expressed therein, he will reconsider his decision in regard to such bonds still outstanding the holders of which have not availed themselves of the terms he offered for conversion into British Government sterling securities?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. The matter is governed by United States law, and is not, therefore, affected by the legal decision referred to in the question.

ALIENS (DOMESTIC SERVANTS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST (for Mr. HALL-CAINE): 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of evolving a special tax on the employment of foreign domestic servants and other workers in this country where their services are not essential to industry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion for consideration together with other suggestions in regard to taxation in connection with my forthcoming Budget.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS.

Mr. McGOVERN (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister if he will give time for the discussion of the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and asks
that Harry McShane, Philip Neville Harker and John Samuel Williams be heard at the Bar of the House of Commons in support of their Petition which was presented to the House on Monday, the 26th February, 1934, and which sets forth certain demands on behalf of the unemployed"?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The whole problem of unemployment is engaging the constant attention of the Government, and the Bill now before Parliament is designed to make possible an improvement in the lot of those who are unfortunately unemployed. The views of all sections of the people are made known in this House through their elected representatives, and in the opinion of the Government no advantage would be gained by acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that, while various interests are represented in this House, it is usual for any important interest in this country which is specially affected by any legislation to have access to representatives of the Government in order to state their case from their point of view; and will he not concede to the representatives of the unemployed men
the same right and privileges as would be conceded to any business in this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not quite the question which has been put to me, but in regard to it I would refer my hon. Friend to the letter which I addressed to the body responsible for getting up and controlling this march.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Prime Minister not realise that that letter offers to myself and my hon. Friends who are Members of this House rights of access to the Government? You do not need to offer us that—we have got that as a right, as elected representatives of the House. We are asking for access on behalf of the unemployed men and their representatives, themselves, on the same terms as brewers, distillers, bankers, or anyone should have access to the Government.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether there is any precedent in this House for the appearance at the Bar of representatives of any interest in this country on the same conditions as are suggested here?

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, there are. Read the story of the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: That was why I said the supplementary question was not on the same point as the original question, and it was the original question which I answered.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not the fact that the money interests, as represented by the City of London, have the right to be heard at the Bar of the House, and is there any reason why a new precedent should not be created?

Mr. MAXTON: It is not a new precedent.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that is a matter of historical knowledge, and it does not quite bear out the explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave. The City of London representation here is not on account of its monied interests, but on account of certain historical facts.

Mr. McGOVERN: I want very seriously to ask the Prime Minister this question. He himself has refused to hear the representations of this organised body, representative of organisations in this country, the Cabinet have refused, and now he is refusing to give them access to the House
itself to present their case to the Government here. Does he mean to say that he has definitely decided on closing every constitutional approach for unemployed men and women in this country—What are you laughing at? Are the unemployed men and women going to have the opportunity, in a proper constitutional way, to present their case here at the seat of Government to you as Prime Minister and to the members of the Government? Have you decided to close down every constitutional approach?

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite the contrary. Every constitutional approach, every approach provided for by the Constitution, and particularly by the fact that this House is a representative Assembly containing representatives of every interest, including Members perfectly capable of doing their duty by making representations on every grievance from which they think people in the country suffer—that constitutional approach, those constitutional doors, are open by virtue of the fact that my hon. Friend himself is a Member of this House.

Mr. McGOVERN: I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Had he to sacrifice every principle and vestige of independence in order to retain his position as head of the Government in this House, and has he definitely—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is wandering entirely from his point.

Mr. McGOVERN: No, I am not wandering at all. I am simply putting to the Prime Minister that he himself—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. McGOVERN: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] What are you shouting at?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member submitted a question to me which I decided to allow him to put to the Prime Minister. What he is now asking the Prime Minister has nothing to do with the question he submitted to me.

Mr. MAXTON: It surely is legitimate for us to ask the Prime Minister, having regard to his own particular association with the working classes of this country, his own demand for the receiving of the voice of the workers in this House, that he should now, in his present position as head of a National Government, give
very special consideration to the cry of men who to a large extent were responsible for placing him at the head of this Government. I ask him, having regard to the position that he holds to-day, to concede to these men what is a citizen right, granted to nearly every other section of the community. The answer that I am here or that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is here is no answer. Every person, every interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I ask the Prime Minister and the Government to reconsider this refusal, which in my experience has never been put up towards any other section of the community until now it is put up against the unemployed people, whose lives and livelihood we are discussing to-day.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
the refusal to-day of the Prime Minister to grant any facilities whatever for the unemployed hunger marchers to voice their grievances either to himself, the Cabinet, or the House.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until Eleven o'Clock this evening pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December relative to the Unemployment Bill (Allocation of Time).

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger John Brownlow Keyes, Baronet, for the Borough of Portsmouth (North Division).

FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Charles MacAndrew and Mr. North; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Loftus and Lieut.-Commander Tufnell.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill): Colonel Crookshank, Mr. Kimball, Mr. McKeag, Mr. Munro, Mr. Murray-Philipson, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Wallhead, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1933).

Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1934 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee [10th Allotted Day].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 43.—(Unemployment Assistance Fund.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 50.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[3.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Albery, Irving James
Glossop, C. W. H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Magnay, Thomas


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Adam


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Granville, Edgar
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Martin, Thomas B.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Blindell, James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Borodale, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bossom, A. C.
Harbord, Arthur
Moss, Captain H. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Munro, Patrick


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hartland, George A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
North, Edward T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hepworth, Joseph
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peake, Captain Osbert


Browne, Captain A. C.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Pearson, William G.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peat, Charles U.


Burnett, John George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Radford, E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clarke, Frank
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert


Conant, R. J. E.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham[...]


Cooper, A. Duff
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Sir Alfred
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leckie, J. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lees-Jones, John
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leigh, Sir John
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Doran, Edward
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lewis, Oswald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Drewe, Cedric
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Duggan, Hubert John
Llewellin, Major John J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dunglass, Lord
Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, G'n)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Edge, Sir William
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mabane, William
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fermoy, Lord
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fox. Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)



Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Soper, Richard
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (p'dd'gt'n, S.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Train, John
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tree, Ronald
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stevenson, James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wise, Alfred R.


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Walter James


Stones, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Strauss, Edward A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.



Strickland, Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Wayland, Sir William A.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Attlee, Clement Richard
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, David
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Buchanan, George
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Dagger, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McKeag, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wilmot, John


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham


Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy

CLAUSE 44.—(Contributions of local authorities to Unemployment Assistance Fund.)

3.40 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, in page 39, line 32, to leave out from "be" to the end of the paragraph, and insert:
calculated as if the sum of the two amounts aforesaid were reduced by an amount equal to that grant.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say much in support of this Amendment, because it merely fulfils a promise which I made last December that I would make this further concession to the distressed areas. I think the concession explains itself. The effect is that from the sum of the two amounts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 44 there is to be deducted the amount of the grant already given to distressed areas, and the 60 per cent. contribution is only to be made on the reduced amount. The effect is, of course, that not only is the amount of the relief increased, but the field it covers is extended to all those areas which have been in receipt of a special grant.

Mr. LECKIE: This carries out the promise made by the Chancellor on the
Second Reading, and, on behalf of the distressed areas, I beg to thank him for having carried it out.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It is true that this carries out the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Money Resolution, but I say now, as I said then, and shall say further on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," that it in no sense carries out the promise made earlier from the Government Benches as to the taking over of the whole of the unemployed and accepting financial responsibility for them, as was understood at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 40, line 33, to leave out from the first "the" to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
cost of such relief as aforesaid provided by that council bears to the aggregate cost of such relief provided in Great Britain.
This is a further concession. It is not one which affects the Exchequer, but it is one which alters the distribution of the relief among the various authorities concerned, and, instead of making the relief proportionate to the relation which the contribution of any particular council
bears to the whole amount of the contributions so payable, it is now made proportionate to the relation which the cost of the relief provided by that council bears to the aggregate cost of relief in Great Britain. That means to say that it is a proportionate relief in each case according to the amount provided by any particular council. This also is in response to a definitely expressed desire on the part of the authorities themselves.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. JAMES REID: I am sure that the local authorities will be gratified to have some concession from the Chancellor in this matter, but I am not clear how far the concession goes, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend a question, if I may put it in a concrete way. As I understand it, if the expenditure disbursed under Clause 40 exceeds 5 per cent. of the whole contributions all over the country, then this concession takes effect. Let us suppose that in one area the proportion is 10 per cent. That area will now get its whole 10 per cent., and not a smaller sum, as it would have done had not this Amendment been made. Suppose, however, that all over the country, on the average, the sum incurred under Clause 40 is only 4 per cent. of the total contributions, and suppose that in the particular area of which we are speaking it is nevertheless 10 per cent., do I understand that that area, although it has the same 10 per cent., gets nothing, simply because in other places things work rather differently and the average is only 4 instead of 5 per cent.? I should like to be assured by the Chancellor, in the first place, that the local authority's expenditure is fully met provided that the national average is 5 per cent., and I would like to ask him what is the position in the case of a heavily burdened area where the proportion is, say, 10 per cent., when the national average is only 4 per cent.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give attention to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), and also to be good enough to put me right if I am wrong in regard to this matter. I understand that the
local authorities will be compensated by the Treasury if the amount which they pay out is over 5 per cent.; but under the Bill as it stands the compensation is calculated in such a way that all local authorities will get the amount that is coming to them in accordance with the amount they have actually, contributed to the fund. That appears to me, and to a number of local authorities, to work very unfairly, because in most of the poorer areas the number of people whom I have seen described as "condition breakers"—people who break conditions and in consequence are transferred from the Unemployment Assistance Board to the local public assistance committee—obviously will be more numerous, and, if these poorer areas are compelled to pay whatever amount of relief they pay to these "condition breakers" as a consequence of their having been prevented from getting relief from the Unemployment Assistance Board, I think everyone will agree that the areas in which money is spent on these condition breakers ought to get the full proportion, not of the amount they have contributed to the national fund, but of the amount which they have actually spent in keeping these condition breakers. I am not going to take up time by trying to figure out the effects of the Amendment and see whether the insertion of these words will make the position of these hardly hit local authorities more fair and just than it is under the Bill as it is printed, but if the Chancellor could inform us whether those hardly hit areas will be fairly compensated, I think the Committee, and local authorities, will be very pleased. I should be glad if he would make it clear whether that is the intention of the Amendment.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: The Clause as originally drafted did not appear to afford the protection to individuals and municipalities which was foreshadowed in the financial memorandum, and there has, consequently, been some anxiety in the minds of a number of municipalities as to the additional charges that they might be called upon to bear as the result of the operation of Clauses 39 and 40. The charges that will arise under those Clauses must naturally be a source of speculation until actual practice has shown how they work out. I have been
studying the Amendment and I have the same difficulty and doubt as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I understand, however, that the form of words on the Paper satisfies the municipal authorities that are concerned in the matter. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, accordingly, for the intention of meeting them, and I hope he may be able to resolve the doubt that has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not surprised that it is a little difficult to be quite certain of the exact meaning of the words. It requires rather close attention. I hope, if it is not clear, that I may be able to make it perfectly unmistakable. This relief only comes into operation when the aggregate of all the cost of relief is in excess of 5 per cent. of the contributions. Therefore the answer to my hon. and learned Friend's question is that while, if the aggregate is in excess of 5 per cent., the relief that is given will be divided among the authorities in proportion to the cost in each case, if the aggregate should not reach 5 per cent. none of them get any relief. I can hardly go further than I have done, because, if there were not that limiting factor, it might happen that people in a particular district would be easy with the condition breakers because they would see that, if they were to be easy with them, it would be at the expense of the Treasury and not of the local authorities. The Treasury must, therefore, guard itself by a limitation against any danger of that kind, but, subject to the excess being over 5 per cent., they will now get relief in proportion to the actual costs.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I am afraid, although the right hon. Gentleman has made the point quite clear, it will not relieve the anxiety that is felt by many local authorities. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid) put the position very clearly when he said that a local authority might incur an expenditure of much more than 5 per cent., although the average cost incurred by local authorities throughout the country might be less than 5 per cent. In that case the particular local authority
having an excess would have no relief. That is so because the Exchequer must protect itself against an over generous local authority, which might accept responsibility for the difficult cases and treat them so generously that the cost would exceed 5 per cent. Whereas the Exchequer is protecting itself, it is not protecting the particular local authority which might have these excessive charges. It may easily happen that an excess over 5 per cent. is incurred by a local authority, not because of its generous treatment, but because it may have in its area a far larger percentage of difficult cases than exists in any other area. Unemployment is diversely distributed throughout the country. There are some districts where it has been excessive for years, and it would follow that in those districts the number of difficult persons would vary as the amount of unemployment varies. Those local authorities will have their difficulties accentuated by the failure on the part of the Exchequer to protect the authority against an excess charge. So, although it is true that some local authorities have been satisfied by this Amendment, it must, nevertheless, be understood that the voices of the depressed areas have been submerged by those other local authorities who are so comparatively well off that they are not articulate in the claims of the distressed areas.
There is another matter which causes local authorities in the distressed districts grave alarm. The Chancellor has now said that local authorities must not be too generous. What he means by that is that the local authorities' standards of public assistance are now to be permanently governed by the standards of unemployment assistance allowances because, if unemployment assistance is less favourable than the run of public assistance, there will be a natural tendency on the part of large numbers of unemployed persons to let themselves be categorised as difficult cases, because in those circumstances they can make themselves chargeable to the more generous local authority. If a local authority is to protect itself against such an influx of additional claims, it will have to lower its own standard of public assistance. So that we are now considering a proposal
which will operate as a lever to lower the standard of public assistance. That is a very serious matter indeed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's second argument would be better directed to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Amendment is somewhat narrow.

Mr. BEVAN: In the very difficult machinery that is being set up, the line of demarcation between the local authorities and the national authorities is now drawn in so blurred a way, that all sorts of anomalies can arise. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and see if it is not possible to make such Amendments as will protect the local authorities most hardly hit by having to carry an excess charge merely because other local authorities will be more favourably situated than they are?

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.0 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The discussions which we have just heard are proof of the complicated nature of this Clause. It has been made complicated by the fact that the Government have not had the courage completely to carry out their original promise made to the House. We object to this Clause, because the local authorities still have to make a financial contribution towards the maintenance of the unemployed, and they have got to make that contribution although they have no control whatever over the treatment of those unemployed. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has emphasised what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said in the Debate on the Money Resolution, and to some extent it was quite true. The Chancellor said on that occasion that, as far as the distressed areas were concerned, their trouble was rather that they should be treated as distressed areas in a separate category. The Committee may remember that I pointed out, on the Second Reading of the Money Resolution, that this still left certain areas with great financial responsibilities even though the Government had accepted a certain amount of that responsibility for the unemployed.
We have been told—and I was told particularly pointedly in this House—that the £94,000 special grant of the Government which comes into this calculation now, and was given to Durham because of its special position out of the £500,000 granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to various authorities, had the effect of lowering the rates of the rural and urban authorities in Durham County. As a matter of fact, just to show the Committee the problem with which we have to wrestle in these areas, the £94,000 which the Chancellor gave us was not equal to the increased cost of the maintenance of the unemployed over the two years before the Chancellor made that grant. Taking the whole of 1932 and 1933, the increased numbers of those who, for one reason or another, were put upon the Poor Law in Durham, cost that county over £100,000 a year. So that the £94,000 which the Chancellor gave did not meet, not the kernel of the problem, but even the needs of those who had gone on to the Poor Law since the Government came into office.
Therefore, the Government did not even make atonement for the increase which had taken place since they came into office, and, as I calculate from figures which have been given to me, we are left in the county—and it is an illustration of what is happening in other parts of the country similarly placed—in addition to our ordinary poor rate, which is something over 8s., with a rate of 1s. in the £ to pay for the unemployed whom the Government are taking over. It is quite true that the Government are taking over the administration, but they are leaving to the counties a certain amount of the cost of the maintenance of these people and, indeed—I do not know how far we would be entitled to discuss this question—to contribute towards the administration of these unemployed under a system which, I am sure, in the long run is going to have the effect of trespassing upon the functions of the local authorities and the Poor Law authorities as was illustrated in the Debate which took place last night on the treatment of the people themselves. In that Debate the Committee seemed to be very well aware of the fact that there are dangers ahead in respect of the administration of the unemployed who are to be taken over by the Public Assistance Board. I think that Members will regret, before they are very
much older, that the work was not handed over completely to these bodies, and I also think that they will regret the results of the administration because of the penal clauses which are put in the hands of the board.
The Government made a promise, but I say now, as I said at the time, that they left themselves a road out. I think it was intended that they should leave themselves a road out, but I seldom see—I have not seen for some years, at any rate—the House so exhilarated as when they learnt that to all appearances the Government were going to take control of the unemployed. We were told about it in the country, and if it had been a fact there would have been something which, without some of the penal powers given to the Public Assistance Board, would have been some real contribution which the Government could have claimed they had made to social legislation. But when they give over the unemployed to the Public Assistance Board with sweeping and dangerous powers, and then they make the local authorities contribute to that work, it is a reactionary step rather than a real step in advance. I am certain, from very close examination of this Clause, from a close attention to the Debates here, and looking at the powers which the board have got, that the unemployed themselves will live to regret being placed in the hands of the board, and the local authorities will wonder what powers they have left when they have to make contributions of this kind when they have absolutely no control or responsibility. Therefore, we shall vote against this Clause to-day, because it has failed to carry out what we thought, and what the Government representatives said, was the Government's promise to the country. It fails to give effect to an old-time claim of labour and of all social thinkers in the country which is much more necessary now, in view of the increase in the number of the long-term unemployed in this country.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am very reluctant to add any words to this Debate, but we have just had a discussion on a very important principle, which, owing to the restricted nature of the Amendment, it was not possible to discuss with sufficient amplitude. There is a tendency to believe that the local authorities are
satisfied with having to make a contribution only of three-fifths of their contribution in the standard year, but I think hon. Members must realise that, while there is a general agreement on the part of local authorities, there is intense dissatisfaction among those local authorities who have had to carry the burden of unemployment for many years. It is very difficult to make those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the agricultural parts of Great Britain, where the farming community are almost entirely exempted from giving any contribution to local government, realise what are the circumstances in the industrial districts, and particularly in the districts where the percentage of unemployment for some years has been round about 30 and 40. In Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire, Durham, Lanarkshire and places like that, leaving the boroughs entirely out of account, the charges due to the maintenance of the able-bodied poor have had a very grave effect in retarding the development of local government services, and we were hoping—I believe our hopes were shared by Members in all parts of the House—that when this Bill was brought forward, it would put unemployment assistance on a permanent basis, and that this burden would be entirely taken off the shoulders of the local authorities.
That has not been the case. In the areas suffering from the most acute distress, where there has been grave restriction of the feeding of school children, and where many of the amenities which poor people should be receiving are restricted because of the height of the rates, the Chancellor still proposes to take yearly many thousands of pounds which are needed for the extra nourishment of the people. Some hon. Members, a few days ago in this House, made quite a fuss about whether children's allowances should be raised from 2s. to 3s. a week, but they do not seem to realise that in promoting legislation of this sort they are depriving the local authorities of funds which would otherwise be available for the better nourishment of children in the schools. Because a shilling a week has a certain demagogic element about it, hon. Members said, "If only we can give three shillings a week, we are making a considerable contribution to the relief of distress." It would be making a contribution almost as adequate, though not as spectacular, to
allow this money, which the Chancellor is taking into national funds, to remain in the hands of local authorities for disbursement in social services and additional nourishment for the poor. Though it is not so spectacular, or has not the same demagogic element, hon. Members ought to go into the Lobby with us in a matter of this kind.
I would point out to hon. Members that they must not be deceived into imagining that the local authorities in the distressed areas are content with the concession which the Chancellor has made. He has made it very largely because he thinks that the local authorities ought still to have some financial obligation to the able-bodied poor. I do not know upon what that contention rests. It certainly has historical justification, because local rates have had to carry this burden all through. It has no support at all from contemporary conditions, because the local authority has not the slightest control over the volume of unemployment in its own area. It would be a proper thing, if you added to the burden of the local authority and made them keep their able-bodied poor, still to permit them to provide employment. But the local authorities have no control. You are adding a burden to the local authority which is helpless to relieve distress at all and ultimately has to pass it on to the poorest sections of the community—the unemployed people themselves.
Secondly, under Clauses 39 and 40, the Minister has provided himself with powers to transfer to the local rates certain people who are declared to be incorrigible and for the treatment of whom the Unemployment Assistance Board will not have the machinery which is available to the Poor Law authority. The Poor Law authority will have to carry these people up to 5 per cent. of three-fifths of the contribution in the standard year—that is, an average of 5 per cent. throughout the country. So that here again the distressed areas are receiving no relief. Their burden may be added to. They will have no relief because they are lost in the general body of local government. All through this controversy—and I have been associated with it in local government administration since 1921—the claim has been that the distressed areas are in a difficult and exceptional posi-
tion, and that you cannot treat the necessitous areas as though they were a normal part of the local government structure, and that in evolving a principle which has regard to the structure of local government as a whole you do not deal with the problem of the necessitous area in particular. It was that difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was up against when he was framing his de-rating proposals. In the discussions in this House the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that, when the relief of de-rating had gone through, there would still remain the special problem of the necessitous areas. That special problem arises particularly because of the incidence of unemployment in those areas.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in weighting the population formula for giving block grants made some provisions for that by weighting the formula heavier for unemployment than for anything else. The contention of the local authorities has been that the formula should be revised and an additional factor added for excess unemployment. That relief has not been given. We have asked for it over and over again and it has not been given, and now it will be possible for a distressed area, having a large percentage of its population out of work, to have between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of its three-fifths contribution added to it under Clauses 39 and 40, but because the average will still be less than 5 per cent., the area itself will have no additional relief. I know that it is difficult to convince hon. Members that there is any grave position here, because the whole thing is expressed in terms of figures and formulae. Hon. Members find it difficult to see the reality which lies behind it, which is, that distressed districts have to levy rates upon impoverished populations to assist in maintaining the social services of places like Eastbourne, Cheltenham and Folkestone. That is what happens. You are collecting money from distressed areas, and redistributing it over areas which are better situated. It is a monstrous proposition, and I would warn hon. Members that it has a tendency to upset the whole economy of Great Britain. As a consequence of the increasing impoverishment of the North and the West you have brought about, in the last 10 or 15 years, a drift in industry to the South and
South-East. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) shakes his head, but I am afraid that he has not perhaps given the attention to this matter that he should have given it.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I was only referring to that point. All the statistics prove that industry has not drifted from the North to the South and that the development in the South is due to new industrial enterprises.

Mr. BEVAN: I used the collective term and spoke of industry as a whole. There is always a substitution of industries taking place. Industries are always dying and new industries are always being set up, but it is a case of the reduced purchasing power in those areas, of the failure to build up social services, and of the failure to maintain a set of social services in those areas such as is to be found in the South. The South is attracting the industrial population, and it is badly unbalancing the economy of Great Britain. If it goes on much longer you will have derelict areas in the North, and the red rash of suburbia in the South, and there will be nothing left of rural England to speak about. Perhaps those who go and spend their time outside Great Britain would like to see that. The most substantial point of all is that you are creating a relationship between the Unemployment Assistance Board and the local authority to depress gravely standards of public assistance throughout Great Britain.
I should like to have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, because the Debate last night left us in a very peculiar position, Under Clauses 39 and 40 a specially difficult case which proves incorrigible can be transferred from the Unemployment Assistance Board to the local authority. I contend that it will not be possible for the local authority in those circumstances to relieve such an individual outside the workhouse. The Parliamentary Secretary disagrees with that view. I ask the Minister of Labour, if it is possible for the local authority to relieve such an individual by means of outdoor relief, what are the penalties in Clauses 39 and 40? Obviously, the intention is to make it difficult for a person—an undesirable person so-called—to receive an unemployment assistance allowance from the board. If he proves
too difficult, you have three ways of treating him. You can pay him in kind and not in cash, or you can pay an allowance to his family and not to him; you can cause him to go to a training centre and in that way destroy his family connections; and you may put him into the workhouse. If a man falls from under the Unemployment Assistance Board on to the local rates in that way, and if he can leave the workhouse and be a recipient of outdoor relief, all the penalties will vanish into thin air. You leave yourselves with no means of punishment at all, because all the man has to do is to get himself classified as a difficult case, and he will become an outdoor recipient of public assistance instead of an outdoor recipient of unemployment assistance.
If the public assistance is given more generously, as it conceivably may easily be, he will prefer to be a difficult case rather than a normal case. In those circumstances, the local authorities will find themselves with an increased outdoor-relief register, because men will get themselves transferred and still be able to have the protection of the local council under the Unemployment Assistance Board. They will be faced by a deadly, impersonal and dispassionate machine over which they can have no control at all, and in which the human and personal elements will be completely destroyed, whereas with regard to the local public assistance authority there is the council, or the guardian, or the organisation, and they can get personal attention to their difficulties. If assistance by the local authority proves to be more generous than, or the same as, the assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board, there will be a tendency on the part of the unemployed to get themselves classified under local authorities and away from the Unemployment Assistance Board. The local authority in those circumstances would have to protect itself against such an increased burden. What is the way to protect itself? The way in which it can protect itself is by reducing its own standards of public assistance, and it has to reduce those standards of public assistance to the point where public assistance is always less favourable that unemployment assistance. So that by this relationship between the board and the local authority you are indeed reducing the standards of the poor in Great Britain all round.
The second point in connection with that which I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer is as follows: If, on the other hand, the local authority is not entitled to give outdoor-relief—I have been speaking on the assumption that it is, and if it is, the circumstances which I have indicated will follow—then the individual remains permanently in the workhouse. We must get out of this tangle somehow. Either the individual is entitled to Poor Law assistance, in which case the burden of the Poor Law increases, or he is not entitled, and if he is not so entitled he is permanently imprisoned in the workhouse. That is the position, and it discloses a relationship between the local authority and the Unemployment Assistance Board so Gilbertian that before many months are over, when the machinery starts operating, you will find yourselves faced with the most difficult anomalies, and local authorities all over the country will be up in arms. I am sure that it is not the intention of hon. Members to create a machinery which will lower the level of public assistance throughout Great Britain. That is not their intention. We must envisage not our intentions, but what the consequences of the machine will be. I shall be very grateful if either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour can relieve my apprehensions in this regard, because I can assure them that they are apprehensions shared by many local authorities in Great Britain.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member be good enough, in order to enable me to give him an answer, to explain to me how this is related to Clause 44?

Mr. BEVAN: It is related to Clause 44 in this way, that when you speak of a 5 per cent. contribution, which is 5 per cent. of the three-fifths, it is an average of 5 per cent. over Great Britain. The second point is that it may be more than 5 per cent. for a particular local authority and is likely to be more for the distressed areas. My case is, that individuals can get themselves transferred—it is the difficult cases we are talking about under Clauses 39 and 40, and it is in respect of those persons that the 5 per cent. arises—to certain categories as difficult persons, and if they are able to receive outdoor relief they may be in more
favourable circumstances than the normal person in receipt of unemployment assistance allowances.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it suggested that it is in the power of these people to demand outdoor relief rather than indoor relief?

Mr. BEVAN: No. Then the other situation arises, that they become permanent inhabitants of the poor house and the charge is still upon the local authority. That is our difficulty. As I understand it—perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can help me here—under the Seventh Schedule the local authority is debarred from giving such a person outdoor relief. The Schedule, at the top of page 72, provides that in respect of the persons referred to in Clause 39,
the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Section Eighteen of the Poor Law Act, 1930, be taken as only prohibiting the giving of outdoor relief to that person himself.
Although the Schedule expresses it in a negative way it produces a positive result, and that is that outdoor relief shall not be given to such person. If outdoor relief cannot be given there arises the issue that that person is permanently in the workhouse. Therefore, I am afraid in devising this hotch-potch scheme, this jigsaw puzzle, the Minister of Labour cannot have had regard to the repercussions upon the local authorities of Great Britain. Instead of having been devised as a means of unemployment insurance on a permanent basis it is throwing a spanner into the whole machinery. I should like this point to be cleared up. I put these questions not to embarrass the Government, but because these things ought to be cleared up before the Bill leaves the Committee.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: As far as Clause 44 is concerned, I find myself in general agreement with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). The matter to which he referred arising out of Clause 39 was left in a very nebulous state last night. There were contradictory statements made with regard to the person we call, for want of a better term, the discard. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can clear up that point many of us on this side will be obliged. My objections to Clause 44 do not coincide exactly
with those of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale although they came to the same thing in the long run. I have the conviction that both in the old Act and in this Bill we fail to grapple with the problem of the distressed areas, because the contributions which the local authorities are asked to make are worked out on a percentage basis of that which they were paying before in respect of their able-bodied poor. So long as we adhere to a method of that sort we fail to differentiate between the heavy burdens of the distressed areas and the normal burdens of the areas less distressed. We must face up to that problem, because it is almost at the root of the unemployment problem.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) dissented from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and pointed out that industries were not moving from the north to the south. As a matter of fact, the history of unemployment in this country since the War, and the tragedy of it, is that it was present for nearly 10 years only in those industries which could not move. The five large heavy immobile industries of the north and the west carried for nearly 10 years practically the whole weight of unemployment, and the only request that the distressed areas have made is that that burden which unemployment has cast upon their rates should be spread equitably over the whole community. The weight of that rate in the distressed areas has produced a growing tendency for light industries to spring up in the south and the south-east. Following upon that movement we have new social problems, problems of housing, health, &c., which follow a civilised community, growing in intensity and demanding still further expenditure from the public purse. Now that we have to deal with such a large Measure as this, we ought to make some provision for taking over not merely the responsibility for, but the financial burdens in respect of the unemployed. For the Government to say that they are taking over the administration and therefore the responsibility for the unemployed people, without taking over the expense, is really beside the point.
We have always accepted the principle in this country that wherever public money goes public control must follow, and that there should be no taxation without representation. It is the general
acceptance of that principle which has provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his difficulties in this case. He is faced with the problem that the people who are spending the money should be responsible in some measure for the raising of that money, but that principle does not hold in this case. The principle established in this Clause is that the central authority shall raise a certain amount of money and shall then levy toll upon the local authorities and those authorities must collect rates from their people and hand them over to a board to spend. That is a violation of the generally accepted principle which has been recognised in this country for years. A contribution fixed in relation not to the burdens of the moment but in relation to the burdens of the past, levied in the shape of a most onerous form of taxation, rating, which is more onerous than Income Tax, will as this scheme develops cause great difficulties and a certain sense of resentment.
We have discussed this Clause, which is an exceedingly difficult one, in the form of a Financial Resolution. We have talked about it from every aspect and we have come to a stage when it is true to say that the Clause as it is before us represents the utmost concession which the Government can see their way to make. Under Sub-section (4) the local authority is to receive some sort of relief in the event of their expenditure in respect of discards being more than 5 per cent., which is calculated upon the aggregate amount spent throughout the whole country. That means that we may have certain municipalities where the expenditure under this heading will far exceed the 5 per cent. and they will get no relief until that distress somehow or other permeates other districts which, apparently, cannot be affected. Therefore, the nominal concession which the Government have made is one—I do not want to use exaggerated language—which means very little to the distressed areas. It is undoubtedly a fact that these proposals have caused great disappointment in those areas which have struggled on for the last 10 years carrying this tremendous weight of unemployment. I would not mind disappointment and disillusionment if I were not convinced from my own experience in the distressed areas that we shall never get our industries going properly until the weight
of taxation through the rates is taken from them. Until we can get that burden removed we have very little hope of reviving the export trade in those heavy industries upon which the life blood of our country depends. I speak from the depth of a great conviction and I say that I am firmly convinced that as this scheme goes on it will produce more and more disappointment and will eventually be one of the greatest errors in the whole Bill.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I should like to add my voice to the plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the distressed areas. Those people who do not know what the distressed areas have gone through in the last 10 years must find great difficulty in understanding why we insist so much on what may appear to be a small amount, merely 5 per cent. or a fraction of it, but, as the last speaker admirably pointed out, there is a great case to be made out if only on the ground that the burden has been carried on for so long that even this last straw, if not halved or taken away altogether, may be the straw which will break the camel's back, the camel of industry, which is the most important thing when we remember the exports of this country. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) disturbed me to a great extent with his argument, and I am waiting anxiously to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply. It seems to me that the local authority in a distressed area will be put into a difficult position under this Clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to explain to our satisfaction that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is wrong, but I have very grave doubts whether he will be able to do so.
In the autumn the Chancellor of the Exchequer loosened his first strings, somewhat reluctantly, in order to give some concession to the distressed areas. It was given for one year; but if in a transitional period there is a hiatus between the grant given at that time and the operation of this Bill it will be more than ever difficult for distressed areas to carry on because they will have no added help during the interregnum. I hope that he will extend any proposal to cover the period which will exist between the
former distressed area grant and the coming into force of the Bill. The condition of distressed areas is constantly thrust down the throat of hon. Members representing agricultural districts, but it is the concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his attention to these areas more than to anything else and, therefore, I offer no apology for supporting the hon. Member when he says that this is a vital matter for the country, because throughout all these areas there will be great distress if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot give a satisfactory answer to the appeal.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: May I add a word or two in an effort to get some further concession from the Government? Of course, the easiest way out in the long run is for the total burden to be borne by national funds. I appreciate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recognition that this is rather a complex matter, and at the present time I am not in a position to say how it will work out in Glasgow. As far as I can make out no method of applying any apportionment will dispose of certain anomalies with regard to distressed areas, but may I point out how it works out in the case of Scotland as a whole? According to the January number of the Ministry of Labour Gazette the total number of unemployed is 1,918,000, and of that number 292,479 are in Scotland. That is to say, 15.2 per cent. of the total registered unemployed are to be found in a population of approximately 4,800,000.
As far as I can gather from the proposals in the Bill, the anomalies which have previously existed, which have already been dealt with in great detail, will not be disposed of. As far as Glasgow is concerned, rightly or wrongly, a certain interpretation of the Government's intention in these matters was accepted, not only on the part of the elected representatives of the city, but also on the part of the officials; and they were not too hasty in coming to conclusions. They have had several things brought to their notice which required attention and which have added to the rates. Action has been taken in anticipation of the relief which it now appears is not to be forthcoming, therefore, I suggest that in Glasgow, which has no less than 5.2 of the total unemployed in
Scotland to deal with, they have every reason to expect a much greater relief than that visualised in the original proposals.
While the proposals will remove obvious anomalies there are others that will still remain. For instance, at the end of the first five years period I find that Birmingham, a city comparable to Glasgow in every respect, will have contributed to the burden of unemployment in this country a sum of £200,000, but that Glasgow will have contributed no less than £2,200,000. I feel that any attempt to deal with this question on the basis of apportionment will not remove anomalies, and that the only way to play fair with every part of the country is to do what we expected the rather well placed areas would have done by consent. There is no doubt that the Government expected that areas not heavily rated would have helped their more unfortunate neighbours. That has not materialised, but it shows that the Government did expect something to be done in that direction. That having failed the Government should now recognise the equity and justice of the proposal for taking the burden off the rates and withdraw the Clause.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. CONANT: It seems to me that in considering who shall be responsible for paying for unemployment three interests are involved, not two, the interests of the taxpayers, the interests of the ratepayers and the interests of the unemployed man himself. Undoubtedly the interests of the unemployed are best looked after when the cost of unemployment is spread over as wide a field as possible, the more people that are financially interested the more assistance the unemployed man is likely to receive. It is a mistake to assume that local authorities should take no interest as to whether the people for whom they are responsible are at work or are unemployed. They should take not only a personal financial interest in these people but local authorities can, in fact, do a great deal to assist employment in their areas by encouraging industries.
I recognise that the cause of unemployment is probably only to a small extent local; it can hardly be said to be national, it is international, but the fact remains that the vast bulk of the cost of unemployment must obviously be a
national charge, and in point of fact that is what is being done by the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that about 95 per cent. of the cost was being borne by the State and that local authorities were only being called upon to pay 5 per cent. That is not an ungenerous offer to local authorities. This is borne out by a statement made by local authorities themselves in a document sent out by the Association of Municipal Corporations in which they gave their views on the Report of the Royal Commission. They explained, of course, that they were in favour of unemployment being a national charge and they went on to say in paragraph 8:
We consider that the only classes of persons whose assistance is properly and rightly a local charge are: (1) unemployed persons over 65 years of age, and (2) persons who cannot be regarded as effective industrial workers on account of physical or mental incapacity.
A few paragraphs later they say:
'We would point out that upon evidence received by the Royal Commission in February, 1931, it as estimated that some 374,000 men and 97,000 women on the registers of Employment Exchanges at that time would fall within class (2) of the above paragraph 8.
That is within the category of persons who cannot be regarded as effective industrial workers. Out of that total of 471,000 men and women who were on the registers of the exchanges at that time some, of course, were being assisted by the local authority, some by the insurance scheme and some by transitional payments, but the point is that at that time, that is January, 1933, the Association of Municipal Corporations thought it was fair and right that the section of the 471,000 who were then being supported by insurance or transitional payments should be borne on the rates in exchange for the taking over by the Exchequer of the whole cost of able-bodied unemployed. This document was issued before the Bill was presented, and I am wondering whether, now that the Bill has been presented, local authorities are still prepared to stand by what they regarded as fair at that time. Under the Bill they are receiving much more generous treatment. They are receiving in addition relief of 40 per cent. of the cost which they incurred on unemployment in 1933, and it must therefore, be apparent that under the Bill as it stands local authorities are receiving much more generous treatment
than they were prepared to say was fair in January, 1933. I believe that it is in the interests of the unemployed as a whole that their financial assistance should be spread over as large a number of people as possible and, therefore, I support the Clause.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I am certain that if the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) consulted the local authorities he would find that they did not agree with him in any detail. The figures he quoted were interesting but they only refer to classes of people who are not able-bodied unemployed. The classes we are dealing with are able-bodied unemployed, and local authorities are still of the opinion that the cost of keeping the able-bodied unemployed should be borne by the State. The remarks of the hon. Member are utterly beside the point. With regard to the 60 per cent. which local authorities are being called upon to pay, it must be remembered that it is 60 per cent. not only of the cost of maintaining the unemployed but also of the cost of providing means for training, where they are considered to be necessary. In fact, they are called upon under the Bill to provide relief for those people who cannot receive relief from the National Assistance Board. They are to be transferred to the local authorities as an additional burden, which must be borne by the local authorities up to 5 per cent. of the aggregate over the whole country. That is a considerable burden, and I doubt very much whether any local authority would pass a resolution congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the position in which they are placed as compared with the position they were in before the introduction of the Bill.
But, whatever may be the position of certain well-situated local authorities, where there are comparatively few unemployed, I do not think anyone would say that those areas—such as the one in which I live and others which have been described as necessitous areas—are receiving anything like fair treatment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is very well aware of the great number of deputations that have waited on him and other Chancellors of the Exchequer from the hard-hit local authorities because of the very
serious condition in which they found themselves by reason of unemployment. If we look up the speeches made by the several Chancellors in reply to those deputations, we find in every one of them an admission that the areas concerned were entitled to relief, but the excuse made was that it was almost impossible to find a reasonable formula by which those areas could be assisted. The Government themselves made an appeal to the better-off local authorities to come to the aid of the hard-hit local authorities, but there was no response, and the Government got no such assistance.
Many consultations have taken place between the Treasury and the representatives of local authorities in regard to the 60 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that the local authorities have never accepted the 40 per cent. as an adequate contribution towards the cost of the unemployed in a distressed area. They do not accept it now. They have always held, quite outside the promises made by the Government, that the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed, men and women, should be a national responsibility and charge. But the Government, after having made a promise which everyone considered at the time was a definite promise, that the entire maintenance of the unemployed would be taken over by the Government, made a statement that 60 per cent. of the cost, and now an additional 5 per cent., must be borne by the local authorities. I cannot imagine how representatives of necessitious areas can vote for such a proposal. They know well that their own local authorities will not endorse it. They know that through their association the local authorities have vigorously opposed the proposal. I was, therefore, surprised to hear the statement by the hon. Member for Chesterfield that local authorities were in any way satisfied with the contribution of the Government.

Mr. CONANT: I never said they were satisfied.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Member indicated that the contributions of the Government were very much better than the local authorities had a right to expect.

Mr. CONANT: I said that their treatment was far more generous than the
Association of Municipal Corporations had asked for at the beginning of the year.

Mr. McENTEE: The Association of Municipal Corporations never took such a point of view and they do not take it now. They have always been opposed to this financial arrangement, and they have expressed their opposition. I speak with some knowledge of the association, for I think I have read all the matter that has been issued by them with regard to local unemployment and its cost. I think that the quotation read by the hon. Member for Chesterfield was an indication that that is so, because it referred to a section of unemployed who are not able-bodied and are not industrial workers at all.
I would put to the Chancellor a small point but a very important one. Since the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of his own Amendment I have been trying to find out what is the meaning of that Amendment, and how it affects a point which I endeavoured to raise on a previous occasion. It is a point raised also by the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is as to the 60 per cent., or the addition to the 60 per cent. of an amount up to 5 per cent. which may be borne by the local public assistance committee. If it exceeds 5 per cent. a remission is to be given of the amount above the 5 per cent., but it is in regard to the way in which that remission is given, and the method of calculating it, that I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation. I cannot understand the proposal. Let us assume that the excess over 5 per cent. is 10 per cent. over the whole country. I presume that a remission will be made of 5 per cent. What is the method of calculating that 5 per cent.? The Association of Municipal Corporations point out that the remission ought to be made, not in accordance with the amount contributed over the whole country, but in accordance with the amount actually expended on keeping the people who have been referred to the local authorities by the national board. It appears to be elementary justice that if a large number of people are referred to the locality by the national board, if they are put out of what might be called benefit and are put on the local rates, any remission that is to come from the national fund
to the local rates obviously ought to go to those who are paying for the maintenance of the unemployed.
Under the Bill it will not go in that way at all. It will be paid in proportion to the amount that actually contributed to the fund over the whole country, and it may easily be that the areas which have contributed largely will get a share equal with the others, although they have paid out larger amounts than others because they have had to keep a larger number of unemployed. That is an unfair method of distributing the excess over 5 per cent. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage which will give more equitable treatment to public assistance committees that have paid out large sums of money in keeping unemployed who have been referred to them by the national board.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. MOLSON: The criticism of the proposals in this Clause has taken two forms. The hon. Member who has just spoken still continues to accuse the Government of not having carried out its promise to undertake the greater part of the charge for the able-bodied unemployed. That criticism was very fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant). I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand quite firm on this point. I think that he has carried out his undertaking and has actually made further concessions, and it would well become those who speak on behalf of the local authorities to express some gratitude to my right hon. Friend for what he has done.
The second criticism is of a quite different kind, and with it I have some sympathy. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some qualifications in the Clause between now and Report, so that without increasing the cost to the Exchequer—there I agree that my right hon. Friend has gone to the limit of concession—the distribution amongst the different local authorities should be in accordance with the needs of the areas concerned. I think it was very well argued by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) that the concession which has been made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would go to the local authorities where the cost of maintaining the able-bodied unemployed is not very burdensome. When this additional charge is being imposed on the taxpayer the money should go to the districts where the burden is greatest and where the need for relief is also greatest.
I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his own political record in this matter. One of the greatest achievements of the last Conservative Governments was the De-rating Act and the grants that were made under it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that that is not disputed now by anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There are some things that would be disputed by members of the Labour party even though they were apparent to every one else in the country. I am not trying to be provocative. I am trying to do some good for the distressed areas. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion made a grant to the distressed areas in accordance with and in proportion to their need, and again last year he made a special grant for the assistance of the distressed areas and distributed it according to a formula which gave the greatest relief when the need was greatest. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and Report whether, without making any further financial concessions from the Treasury, he could not once more do something to spend this money amongst the different authorities in such a way as to give further relief to depressed and distressed areas?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. K. LINDSAY: Every day I get resolutions from Scotland on this question and I am sure that other hon. Members and probably the right hon. Gentleman also, get similar resolutions from other parts of the country. Reference has been made to the encouragement by local authorities of industries in their areas and it seems to me that as this Bill is doing so much to tackle unemployment in a constructive way, its financial provisions might also help in that way. It is out of the profits of industry that our social services are paid for, including the salaries of this board, but we have the vicious circle caused by the existence of certain very heavily-rated areas and their
effect upon industry. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do what the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) suggests and see to it that this alleviation will go only to the most depressed areas I believe that he will be taking one more step—and I perfectly agree as to what he did before in connection with de-rating—to help to deal with this question. For several weeks we have been talking about dealing with unemployment. Here is one little part of this Bill by means of which we might make some slight effect on unemployment itself.
At the present moment in Scotland it is quite impossible in certain areas to start fresh industries and while one finds that the figures in general are improving there is still this persistent core of heavily rated areas and nothing is being done to touch it. It is for that reason that I venture to take up a few minutes of the Committee's time on this point. The saying, "No taxation without representation" has no meaning in connection with this question. The relation between central and local taxation has been completely revolutionised. While the average in the country as a whole is nearly 50 per cent., in the agricultural areas—which, I believe, the last Conservative Government helped—it will probably be found that the central Government is paying up to 70 or 75 per cent. and in the depressed areas it is 50, 60 or 70 per cent. Therefore, that argument does not seem to have much point in reference to this question. Nor, I think, has the argument in regard to Clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill.
The real problem is the problem of the heavily rated area and the question of whether, by some positive step on the financial side, something cannot be done to help the establishment of fresh industries. I know of cases in Scotland in which employers from abroad and also from the South have tried to start fresh industries but have found it impossible to do so in these persistently heavily-rated areas. I hope that this matter will be given consideration between now and the Report stage because every step which can be taken in the direction indicated will be much appreciated in the North and north-East no less than in South Wales.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. NALL-CAIN: My constituency is a part of Liverpool and there is one point arising on this Clause which is causing much concern to the local authorities there. That is in regard to the framing of their budgets in relation to the cost of unemployment during the year 1934–35. Every month before this Measure becomes operative the city of Liverpool is paying a larger proportion for unemployment than it will pay after the Measure has become operative. If, for instance, it becomes operative on 1st July, the estimated cost for the city of Liverpool in the year 1934–1935 will be £930,000. If it does not become operative until 1st October the cost will be £1,040,000. If, on the other hand, such a thing could happen as that it would become operative on 1st April, the cost then would be £817,400. This is causing a great worry to these local authorities in making up their budgets for this year and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not give some idea to those local authorities, that, if the Measure did not become operative until a later date, he would help them out in some way. I am not raising the point of whether local authorities in distressed areas are happy with the Government's contribution or not. I might say that a great many of them are very grateful to the Government for the help which the Government are giving. But they want that help to come quickly. They do not want to see their rates increased to such an extent as to swallow up the benefit of that help. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give these local authorities some idea of what their position will be between now and the coming into operation of this Measure.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I wish to reinforce one or two of the points submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I was rather surprised to hear congratulations being extended to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and expressions of gratitude offered on behalf of local authorities, although perhaps I should not be surprised at that. It is well known that the burden of the able-bodied unemployed was placed upon the local authorities by the Government. Having placed the whole burden on the local
authorities, hon. Members opposite are congratulating one another on the fact that the Government are now offering some partial relief. I am pleased, however, to notice the interest which is being taken in this Clause. The conclusion which I draw from the Clause is that the persons who are in receipt of relief in these areas, will find themselves going down deeper and deeper to even more depressed standards than those which they have at present.
I am certain that if hon. Members opposite were representing constituencies like those in Glamorgan they would regard this matter with very grave concern. For years we have been faced with an unemployment average of 38 per cent. of the total complement of employable workers in Glamorgan. Glamorgan is carrying an unemployment burden of 40.1 per cent. and over the past 12 months the burden of able-bodied being carried by the county council—by the public assistance committee—has been 2,000. It is true that as a distressed area we are receiving something out of the grants given to such areas. It is true that 40 per cent. of that burden is carried by the Treasury but we are still faced with a very serious problem in Glamorgan where the poor rate at present is about 8s. in the £ while as regards the boroughs, the poor rate in Merthyr Tydfil is 13s. 7d. in the £. That indicates the plight in which we find ourselves in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Hon. Members opposite would not be complacent on this subject and would not be prepared to accept this Clause so readily if they were faced with that problem in their own constituencies. They are not, however, faced with that problem because agricultural constituencies pay no rates whatever.
A great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) is sheer nonsense. How can it be argued that industries are not going to the depressed areas because of high rates, when, in fact, they would only pay 25 per cent. of the rates? It is not that at all. That is not the problem. It is a kind of red herring drawn across the trail. It is a delusion and indicates a misconception of the whole problem. Before any relief can come to the distressed areas, unemployment will
have to be faced as a national problem and some national planning will have to be done to deal with it. There will have to be a redistribution of population within this country and not within the Empire. Something will have to be done upon those lines but as that is outside the range of the Clause I do not propose to go into the matter any further.
This is a grave problem for us. Certain vital considerations arise on the Seventh Schedule and I would like the Minister of Labour to reply to the point of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale as to why persons who have been termed "discards" should be thrown upon the local authorities. Are the local authorities to be made responsible for the sins of certain individuals who happen to reside in their areas? Are these people to be kept permanently in the workhouse? If their cases are thrown out by the board which is to consider them, is the burden to be cast on the local authorities? I hope we shall have a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very cogent remarks and the three or four substantial points made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I wish to reinforce his remarks and also to destroy any illusion which may have been created by the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The discussion of this Clause, which deals with the contributions of local authorities to the Unemployment Assistance Fund, has enabled hon. Members to cover a wide field. Indeed, several of them have taken this opportunity of repeating their former gloomy prophecies as to the sad fate of the unemployed under the provisions of this Bill. I differ considerably on various points from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). When he said, for example, that the Government had thrown the whole burden of unemployment on local authorities I can only describe that statement in the words which he applied to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). It is sheer nonsense. On the other hand, I agree with him that the problem of what may be called, and what sometimes are called derelict areas is one of great importance. It is not one which depends upon rates. It is a wider
question than that and it is one which, as it appears to me, would come within the purview of the Unemployment Assistance Board's duties.
I have always claimed that as one of the advantages of a board of this kind whose duties are defined as including that of promoting the welfare of the unemployed and restoring their condition. It is one of the advantages of that scheme that a board formed as this board will be, can take a very much wider view and can spread its activities over a wider field than would be possible to any particular local authority. The sort of conditions to which the hon. Member opposite referred are not confined to an area within the boundaries of any particular local authority, but they may be considered to fall within certain fairly well-defined regions, and I hope that the Unemployment Assistance Board will be found, when it gets to work, to take a regional rather than a local authority view of its problem.
With regard to the general question as to whether local authorities have or have not been liberally treated under the substantial proposals of the Bill, I think the case was very aptly put in the extremely well-informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant). To put it in a nutshell, what is the use of talking about the old story of taxation without representation when, as a matter of fact, the Exchequer is contributing 95 per cent. out of 100 per cent. of the cost of relief of the able-bodied unemployed? I think the Committee has already disposed of this question and that I need not any longer argue a position which, although theoretically, I agree, maintained by the Association of Municipal Corporations, but not, I think, by the County Councils Association, has now been so completely met that I do not think it remains any longer as a point of substance.
But when you come to the case of the distressed areas, the position is not quite so clear. Let me once again remind the Committee that special attention has been paid to the distressed areas both in the past and in the present provisions. The hon. Member who began this discussion repeated four times, I think, that the Government had made a promise that they would take over the whole cost of the assistance of the able-bodied unemployed, but if he had said so 40 times,
that would not make it true, and it is not a statement which has been put forward by the local authorities. I would point out to the hon. Member, as indeed I did earlier, that in the calculation of the block grant special consideration has been given to the question of the distressed areas and the formula has been weighted in their favour, in order to give them more aid than is given to others. In the case of the county of Durham, for example, the relief given under the block grant is equivalent to a rate of over 1ls. in the £, and that compares with an average for all the counties in the country of 4s. 9d., so that the relief given to the county of Durham is more than twice as large as the relief given on the average to the county districts of the country; and I could quote similar figures, of course, for other distressed areas.
A number of my hon. Friends say: Cannot something still further be done? It is suggested that everybody wants to help these cases which are most in need, and, if relief is to be given, should not that relief go to those whose difficulties are the greatest? We have a demand that the treatment of the able-bodied unemployed, instead of falling upon the local authorities, should be made a national charge. We admit that to the extent of 95 per cent., but the new proposal is that it should not be a national charge any more, but that the rich districts, or the comparatively rich districts, whether they be county boroughs or county councils, should pay for the difficulties of the poorer districts, that instead of the poorer districts relief being given to all local authorities, less should be given to the richer authorities and more to the poorer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The rich do not require the relief, but the poor do.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must recollect that the so-called rich districts are often paying rates at a very high level. Take my own town of Birmingham, for example, which would probably be classed as a rich one and which is certainly more fortunate than some other towns in the country. The rates there are now, and have been for a long time, 14s. in the £, and that is a great deal higher than the rates in many other places. I would like my hon. Friends to consider this point, which in-
deed I made on a previous occasion: This is not a Bill for equalising rates. It is not a Bill for trying to make everybody's rates the same. It is a Bill for new treatment of the able-bodied unemployed, and in settling where the cost of that should lie we have taken into account, in the Clause which is now before the Committee, the special difficulties of what are called the distressed areas, and we have done what we could to meet them.
Now I come to say a few words about the subject of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). He said that we had got into a tangle somehow or other, but, in listening to him I thought that if there was a tangle, it was the hon. Member who had made it.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Oxford Union.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of either Oxford or Cambridge. As a plain man, I put a few questions to the hon. Member in order that I might clarify my mind and find out what he was driving at, because it appeared to me that he was mixing up two Clauses which are different in fact from one another and have very different effects. He talked about Clauses 39 and 40 almost indiscriminately, but surely he must know by now, as we have already passed that point in the Bill, that they deal with very different circumstances. Clause 39 does not deal with men who are excluded from Part II of the Bill. Under Clause 39 the individuals affected still remain under the jurisdiction of the board, but in Sub-section (2, d) of that Clause there is a provision under which, in certain circumstances, individuals may, where arrangements in that behalf have been made with the local authority, be sent to the workhouse. In that case the charge does not fall upon the local authority, but still remains upon the board, and the board have under that Clause to make good the charge to the local authority. Therefore, although the hon. Member spoke repeatedly of the cases of special difficulty, nevertheless it is not Clause 39 which he had in mind, but Clause 40.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman was evidently not here last night, or he would have understood the point under discussion, which is that when a man drops out of Part II of the Act because he—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not Clause 39.

Mr. BEVAN: —because he contravenes the conditions set out in Clause 39.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Mr. BEVAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 39, he will see that it deals with cases of special difficulty. It says, and indeed I said so in my speech, that it would be possible for the Unemployment Assistance Board, by arrangement with the local authority, to put such a man in a workhouse. I said so, and the right hon. Gentleman mistakes me. Last night. however, the point was put, If he walks out of the workhouse, to whom does he become chargeable? To the local authority or still to the board? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Labour could not give a reply to that question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not here last night, but the hon. Member has now made it plain that he was, as I said, confusing Clauses 39 and 40. He talks about persons dropping out of Part II of the Act, but they do not drop out of Part II under Clause 39 at all; they only do that under Clause 40, and the hon. Member surely, with all the attention that he has given to the Bill, must know that by now. I come now to Clause 40, which is an entirely different case. It is not the cases of special difficulty that really formed the argument of the hon. Member at all; it is the cases under Clause 40, where they are suspended from the application of this Part of the Act.

Mr. BEVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the words at the beginning of Clause 40, which specifically refer to "the foregoing section," namely, Clause 39? It refers to those persons who have
contravened conditions attached in accordance with determinations made under the last foregoing section.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is under Clause 40, not Clause 39. It does not arise until the applicant
has persistently contravened the conditions attached
or
has persistently refused or neglected to maintain himself or his family.
Those are the conditions under which a person may come under Clause 40, not
under Clause 39, and, therefore, it is not Clause 39, but Clause 40, to which the hon. Member's observations were directed.

Mr. BEVAN: If the right hon. Gentleman will read on, he will see that the persons referred to in Clause 40 are those persons who contravene the
conditions attached in accordance with determinations made under the last foregoing section,
and "the last foregoing section" is Clause 39.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was trying to see whether there was any real substance in what I understood to be the hon. Member's argument. The argument was that Clause 44 imposed undue risks upon the local authorities, because under Clauses 39 and 40 certain charges might be imposed upon the local authorities over which they would have no control, but which might cause their costs to be a very great deal higher than had been anticipated, and such as would not be relieved by Clause 44. That was the hon. Member's argument. I have shown, I hope, to the Committee, at any rate, if not to the hon. Member, that that case does not arise under Clause 39.
I now come to Clause 40, which is that of the incorrigible condition-breaker, the man who will not keep the conditions, and in that case in certain circumstances that person ceases, for a time at any rate, to be under Part II of the Act at all. He is no longer under the jurisdiction of the board, and if he wants relief, therefore, he must go to the public assistance committee. Is he thereby going to impose this charge upon the local authority to the extent which the hon. Member fears? I hope the Committee will bear in mind that the person in question is not in special difficulties at all, but is the incorrigible condition-breaker. What is the duty of the local authority when this person comes before them? I imagine that the local authorities would prosecute him under the Vagrancy Act. In that case, if he is convicted, he will have to serve his sentence, and it will not be a question of going to the workhouse but of going to prison. On the other hand, the hon. Member may say that they may not choose to prosecute him under the Vagrancy Act but may give him relief. Again, I say that they are not obliged to give him out-relief. They
may give him relief in the workhouse. Then, he says, they may choose to give him out-relief in excess of that given by the Unemployment Assistance Board. Therefore, said the hon. Member, a man will be better off if he continually breaks the conditions than if he complies with the conditions. If a local authority really does take that point of view and gives a man who is a condition-breaker and refuses to maintain his family relief at a higher rate than is given by the board, are they to be compensated for that at the expense of the public Exchequer? That is the very justification of the provision in the Clause.
There is only one other point I want to mention, and it was put by the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Nall-Cain). The point is one of substance. Certain districts have been in receipt of distressed area grants, which come to an end at the end of the financial year. We do not know when this Bill will come into operation because the appointed day has not been settled, and I am asked what will happen in the case of distressed areas between the end of the financial year and the beginning of the operation of this Bill. This is a convenient opportunity to tell the Committee what my proposals are in that respect. I propose that the distressed area grant should continue at the same rate as is now being paid up to the date when the Bill comes into operation. Things will carry on as they are at present until the new arrangement takes place. That does not need any Amendment or alteration in the Bill. It means that there will have to be a Supplementary Estimate for the extra amount required.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: This is the right hon. Gentleman's second appearance on the Committee stage of this Bill—only the second. It is a great pity that he has not attended the Debates a little more frequently, because, if he had, he would have made a good deal better speech than he has made this afternoon. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to confine himself to protecting the coffers of the State, which is his primary job, or, if he wants to talk about the substance of the Bill, that he ought really to understand the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman to-day has been speaking as a plain man. I propose to speak as a plainer man on what is really
the question which divides the right hon. Gentleman's friends from those of us who sit on this side of the Committee. There is no doubt that when the Minister of Health nearly a year ago said that unemployment was to be made a national responsibility, the country believed one thing and one thing only, and all the local authorities believed it too. That was that any financial responsibility for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed was to be put upon the State and none of it was to rest on the local authorities. That was what hon. Members on the other side of the Committee believed in March last year; that is, again, the impression which was created in the Press; and that is what local authorities believed would happen. It is true, as I have said before, that the County Councils Association, being the body that it is, has acceded now to the policy of the Government. The Municipal Corporations Association, notwithstanding the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) has always stood, ever since about 1921, for a policy of complete financial responsibility by the State for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed.
That is the issue, and the Government, as a matter of fact, have not fulfilled their pledge. The right hon. Gentleman tried to show that 95 per cent. of it is now being met. That is a curious figure arrived at by a very elaborate calculation, the kind of calculation which we expect from the right hon. Gentleman because he is the author of the famous formula that nobody understands. One is not surprised that he should by an elaborate calculation arrive at a figure of that kind. The point is that it does not matter if it is 97½ per cent., the Government meant to convey to the people of this country the view that they were going to take over all the responsibility, and they have not done so. Although the right hon. Gentleman devised his famous formula in 1929 to redistribute the State assistance which was given to local authorities it has left an unequal burden bearing on local authorities. As a matter of fact, it has not worked properly, and the fact that the Government are continuing the distressed areas grant up to the moment when this new scheme comes into existence—a proposal that was cheered lustily by hon. Members on the other side as an act of generosity—is merely an act of
common decency. It is not additional assistance to distressed areas. They will still be left to bear relatively a heavier burden than other local authorities in the country. I was astonished at the Chancellor of the Exchequer arguing that the rich should not pay for the poor areas—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was doing so in favour of a national charge.

Mr. GREENWOOD: He was arguing in favour of a national charge—which is not accepted—and he argued against the rich areas paying for the poorer. He put the proposal to the richer areas that the Government were prepared to find £500,000 for the distressed areas if the other local authorities would find a like amount; that is, the well-to-do authorities were asked to contribute to the expenses of the poorer authorities. Was there ever a more monstrous proposal? It was an admission that the responsibility ought not to rest on the poorer authorities. It was an admission that they needed help from outside, and it was a cowardly device for getting certain areas to help the poorer areas when the responsibility ought to have been taken by the nation as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that expense has been taken off the rates. That is true, but what is happening to the local authorities? The right hon. Gentleman made a most unfortunate excursion into Clauses 39 and 40. Under the Unemployment Assistance Board in the administration of Clauses 39 and 40 we do not know how large will be the field of cases of special difficulty. That was argued last night. We do not even know who are the incorrigible condition-breakers. They need not be confined to men who persistently refuse to maintain their families. Cases of special difficulty under Clause 39 might comprise a very substantial number of the people who come under the operation of Part II. We are justified in entertaining suspicions about the administration of these Clauses, and cases of special difficulty may be cases of men who refuse to black-leg and to accept employment under humiliating conditions and scandalously low wages. Before they become cases of special difficulty under Clause 39 they may be cases of incorrigible condition-breakers under Clause 40. These responsibilities are being put upon the local authorities, and
the right hon. Gentleman has never yet tried to prove that the 5 per cent. of the cost which he estimated—I do not accept it—that they will be bearing for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed will cover the cost of the cases of special difficulty that come under Clause 40 and of the odds and ends of unemployed people who slip out of the net of both Part I and Part II.
The chances are that local authorities, in so far as they deal with able-bodied unemployed now, will find themselves in respect of those cases facing a heavier financial burden than they have done in the past. Not only so, but the right hon. Gentleman has not said to-day, and indeed he has not said during the discussions on the Bill, that local authorities are being faced with new responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of training centres. So that, as a matter of fact, the story that the Government have taken over the responsibility for the maintenance of the unemployed is not true. Even if it were true that the local authorities were really grateful for the assistance that has been given, there are two points to be borne in mind. The local authorities of this country do not believe that they are called upon to maintain people who are unemployed because of something outside the control of the powers of local authorities. Even if it is true that certain authorities are getting some relief, what is the price that we are paying for it?
The price that we are paying for this partial relief for local authorities is the establishment of a new kind of Poor Law system which will be harsher in its operation than the present system, which will operate through centralised regulations and which may create a situation so intolerable to people who are victims of unemployment that they will leave Part II, and go—where? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, it is perpetual workhouse conditions for them. Even though some relief may be given to the local authorities, the price which the unemployed are going to have to pay is, in our view, a very heavy one. Hon. Members opposite who do not represent county divisions but represent urban authorities know quite well that, whatever their political complexion, all of them are against any burden being cast on local authorities for the maintenance of the
victims of international difficulties, for the maintenance of people who are out of work through no fault of their own. If hon. Members choose to support the Government on Clause 44—and we have heard one or two feeble arguments in support of it—they must do so, but I must point out that our attitude on this question has been consistent, and that on this Clause, as on other Clauses of principle, we shall divide against the Government, upholding our view in the Lobby, and, as I believe, putting supporters of the Government in the wrong.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I should not have spoken but for the quite unnecessarily provocative note of the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I tried to put my own remarks in as unprovocative a manner as possible, because I wanted to obtain serious consideration for them, but the Chancellor gave us a reply which was meagre in matter and cheap in manner. Of course, he can always count on a number of hon. Members coming in to listen to some cheap debating points which have nothing to do with the subject-matter under discussion and then going out. He was asked a specific question—why should a distressed area which may have to meet a charge amounting to 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of its own cost towards the maintenance of the able-bodied poor, have to meet it merely because the average cost for the country is less than 5 per cent.? He did not answer that. It was a substantial point made in the course of the Debate, and the Chancellor did not deign to make the slightest reply. The reason is that he has not any reply to make. He skimmed over it, and seized upon a number of quite unsubstantial points made in the course of the speeches in the hope that we should forget all about this substantial point.
Let us come to Clauses 39 and 40. The difficulty we experience in discussing the Bill is that we have to educate the front bench opposite as to what the Bill means. Clauses 39 and 40 cannot be taken separately, they have no meaning separately, because Clause 40 deals with what happens to persons who contravene the conditions laid down in Clause 39. To say that Clause 39 has nothing to do with Clause 40 is to falsify the issue en-
tirely. Clause 39 speaks not merely of the person who leaves his family or persistently refuses to support them. Whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to do a particularly mean thing he always trots out a perfectly exceptional case. He did it on more than one occasion when he set aside the guardians, he trotted out the exceptional case for the purpose of reducing the standards of ordinary men, and he is doing it now. Under Clause 39 a man who refuses to accept employment can be subjected to the penalties imposed by Clause 40. To refuse to accept employment is not a very heinous crime.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

Mr. BEVAN: It imposes no burden on the State. Somebody else will have the job. Where there are many more men than jobs the fact that one man refuses to accept a job means, simply, that some other man goes off the State and takes the job. The State has to carry no heavier burden. So there is no point in that at all. The refusal to accept a job is not a heinous thing at all, it is normally done under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Praiseworthy!"] I am not arguing that it is praiseworthy or otherwise, merely pointing out that it is not a considerable crime. It certainly is not a crime for which a man should be sentenced to permanent imprisonment in a workhouse.

Viscountess ASTOR: Who said he was?

Mr. BEVAN: You do not know anything at all about it. If the Noble Lady had listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer she would know that he admitted that this man might be put into the workhouse and kept at the expense of the board. He said that, only he said it in connection with a man refusing to support his family, but it equally applies to the other case.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quoted paragraph (d). That has nothing to do with persistently refusing to maintain his family. It is a condition attaching to an allowance.

Mr. BEVAN: I will read out the Clause, because it is evident the right hon. Gentleman has not read it:
Upon any applicaion for an allowance, if the officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board by whom the application is to be determined is satisfied that the applicant has per-
sistently refused or neglected to maintain himself or his family or has persistently contravened conditions attached in accordance with determinations made under the last foregoing section.
What is the last foregoing section?
No application for an allowance shall be dealt with under this section unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and, in particular, to the question whether the applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities of employment or training and to the question whether there is any necessity for protecting the interests of the applicant or of persons dependent upon him.
So if the man refuses to accept a certain type of training because it offends him in any respect whatever, or refuses to accept employment which is repugnant to him, or if he refuses to support his family, that is what may follow. Those are incidents which happen in working class life day by day, but, of course, hon. Members do not want to allow an unemployed man the right to select his employment. He must accept any miserable job we like to give him, no matter what the conditions of employment or the wage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman read the proviso to Sub-section (1)?

Mr. BEVAN: I do not want to read it. It says that it must be such job as the insurance officer under the Unemployment Insurance Acts considers one that the man should accept.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Read it!

Mr. BEVAN: I will:
Provided that an application shall not be so dealt with by reason only that the applicant has not accepted an offer of employment which would not, in relation to a claim for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, have been held to be suitable employment.
That is the same thing, only I put it in plainer language. The difficulty with the right hon. Gentleman is that he did not read the Clauses until he came into the House this afternoon, and consequently did not understand them. The point I would make is that these are not exceptional cases, these are not incorrigible and undesirable persons, they are normal persons who take exception to training for certain jobs and they may be put in the workhouse and kept in the workhouse. I wish to put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman. Are they
kept in the workhouse permanently as a charge upon the Unemployment Assistance Board? No. Because the Unemployment Assistance Board is not going to keep them indefinitely and hands them over to the local authorities, and then the rates have to keep them. I put a point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not reply—if a man ceases to be a charge to the Unemployment Assistance Board and becomes a charge to the local rates, can the local authorities give him out door relief? If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the Seventh Schedule he will see that it cannot do so, and that is the basis of my charge that the man is permanently imprisoned in a workhouse for having refused to go to a training camp.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member tell me for my information where it is in the Seventh Schedule?

Mr. BEVAN: It says:
The foregoing provisions of this paragraph"—
That refers to paragraphs (c) or (d) of Sub-section (2) of Clause 39 of the Bill—
shall notwithstanding the provisions of Section eighteen of the Poor Law Act, 1930, be taken only as prohibiting the giving of out door relief to that person himself.
If that is given the interpretation which ordinary, unlearned, simple, plain people like myself give it, it means a man cannot be given out-door relief if he falls from under the Unemployment Assistance Board on to the local authority. So, having no other means of support in himself, he must either go to a training centre, which is repugnant to him, or he must be permanently imprisoned in the workhouse. The Parliamentary Secretary disagrees with that; so he does not agree with his chief, who agrees with me. I am going to suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, and that, in fact, the man is not liable to permanent imprisonment in a workhouse. If he is not he can receive outdoor relief. If he receives outdoor relief all the penalties imposed upon him under Sections 39 and 40 vanish into thin air; we have deprived ourselves of any means of punishing this terribly incorrigible person.
Which of those two positions do the Government take up? Which is the Bill to enact? Does it want to keep a man in the workhouse permanently or give
the local authority the right to keep him outside? If it gives the right to keep him outside the workhouse, Sections 39 and 40 have no meaning. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Ah, but a Public Assistance Committee that gave a standard of benefit higher than under the Unemployment Assistance Board would have to carry the additional charge." Public assistance authorities in Great Britain were in many cases paying higher allowances than he wanted the unemployed to have and they were reduced in 1931. In Durham the standard of public assistance was different from the Commissioner's standard, but this Bill makes the Commissioner universal, so that unless the public assistance authorities wish to protect themselves against this class being transferred to them they will have to carry higher charges on the rates or lower their own level of public assistance. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be correct, but he is trying to run away from the issue.

Hon. Members must remember what will happen when this Bill is being administered. It will not then be a question of cheap debating points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Bill leaves us it will put the Unemployment Assistance Board and the public assistance authorities in such a confused relationship that we shall soon require further legislation to put it right. All that I am asking now, very humbly, is that we should put the matter right before the Bill leaves us. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to honour us with a reply, I should be glad if he would give some answer to the points which I have raised, because I think that every hon. Member would be under an obligation to him. He should not try to ride off on cheap debating points which are not worthy of himself or of the Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 64.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[6.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fermoy, Lord


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Flint, Abraham John


Apsley, Lord
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Colfax, Major William Philip
Fox, Sir Gifford


Atholl, Duchess of
Conant, R. J. E.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craven-Ellis, William
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glossop, C. W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goff, Sir Park


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goldie, Noel B.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cross, R. H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Blindell, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Granville, Edgar


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Borodale, Viscount.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Boulton, W. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grigg, Sir Edward


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denville, Alfred
Grimston, R. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bracken, Brendan
Donner, P. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Doran, Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Broadbent, Colonel John
Drewe, Cedric
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hanley, Dennis A.


Burnett, John George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Butt, Sir Alfred
Dunglass, Lord
Harbord, Arthur


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Edge, Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hartland, George A.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Elmley, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Cassels, James Dale
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Hepworth, Joseph
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hornby, Frank
Morrison, William Shephard
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Horebrugh, Florence
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Munro, Patrick
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Soper, Richard


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hurd, Sir Percy
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
North, Edward T.
Spens, William Patrick


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nunn, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stevenson, James


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Ker, J. Campbell
Patrick, Colin M.
Stones, James


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Storey, Samuel


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peat, Charles U.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Percy, Lord Eustace
Strauss, Edward A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Law, Sir Alfred
Petherick, M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Leckie, J. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Templeton, William P.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lees-Jones, John
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Levy, Thomas
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Sir Luke


Lewis, Oswald
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Liddell, Walter S.
Radford, E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Train, John


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Tree, Ronald


Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Ramebotham, Herwald
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mabane, William
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Pertick)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesalf)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Weymouth, Viscount


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


McEwen, Captain J. H. F
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McKie, John Hamilton
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


McLean, Dr. W H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Magnay, Thomas
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Maitland, Adam
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wise, Alfred R.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salt, Edward W.
Withers, Sir John James


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Womersiey, Walter James


Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Samuel Servington



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Milne, Charles
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Dobble, William
Holdsworth, Herbert


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, Charles
Janner, Barnett


Banfield, John William
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Batey, Joseph
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bernays, Robert
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kirkwood, David


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lawson, John James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Leonard, William


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Cove, William G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John


Curry, A. C.
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Dagger, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)




Maxton, James
Rea, Walter Russell
White, Henry Graham


Milner, Major James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Owen, Major Goronwy
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmors)


Paling, Wilfred
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Parkinson, John Allen
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wilmot, John


Pickering, Ernest H.
Thorne, William James



Rathbone, Eleanor
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 45 (Payment of expenses out of Unemployment Assistance Fund) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 46.—Expenditure out of moneys provided by Parliament.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.28 p.m.

Mr. J. REID: This is the appropriate time to attempt to raise the point which I raised incidentally the other night. It arises under paragraph (a) of this Clause, which makes provision for the various members, officers and servants of the appeal tribunals. I want to take as an example the position of the chairman, because I think that that will cover the point which I wish to raise. Under the Sixth Schedule, as it is drafted, rules are to be made by the board to settle the tenure of office of these people. Let us assume that a rule settles a three years' tenure of office, and that a chairman of an appeal tribunal comes to a decision which a Member of this House seeks to question. The Member puts down a Motion to reduce the Vote by, let us say, £10, because he does not agree that that chairman ought to be paid his full salary. The Minister will then have to defend that chairman because the salary is on the Vote, but he will have no control over the chairman because of the three-year security of tenure.
The provisions of Section 46, taken in conjunction with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule, may therefore lead to a very difficult situation. There is no appeal from an appeal tribunal to an Umpire or anything of that sort, as there is under Part I. Each chairman of an appeal tribunal is complete master of the situation within his own area. Accordingly, it is vitally necessary that Clause 46 should be preserved, in order that the Minister may be able to co-ordinate the rules and the decisions which are taken by various chairmen in various areas. He has to ensure that each chairman sets out with the same point of view and acts in approximately the same way. There are two ways of achieving the result. One
is to make the tribunals into judicial bodies, which would mean the complete remodelling of the scheme of the Bill. I am not sure that that would be very desirable. The other way is to put them all entirely under the control of the Minister, so that the chairmen hold office at the pleasure of the Minister. The Minister could then give instructions to that chairman, and if the chairman did not obey those instructions the Minister could dismiss him, and if he carried them out, the Minister could defend him. I would like the Minister to give us his views as to the position of the appeal tribunals under Clause 46.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: There has been a good deal of talk and correspondence about the position of the men who are now employed by public assistance committees in carrying out the duties of paying allowances and so on, and I should like to ask the Minister what is the intention of the board with regard to these men who have been employed for purposes of investigation, assessment and so on by the public assistance committees. Many of them have been doing these duties for a year or two. Is it the intention of the Minister that the board should continue to employ these people?

6.31 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is that the point to which he refers is fully dealt with in Clause 50, which deals entirely with the subject of employment of staff, and the point will be discussed on that Clause. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. J. Reid), it is my intention that the position of chairmen of appeal tribunals shall be analogous to that of chairmen of courts of referees. In practice, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) knows, these appointments are, as a matter of convenience, made for a year. They are reviewed each year, and new appointments or re-appointments, as the
case may be, are made at the end of the year. That is my view with regard to the chairmen of these tribunals.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. COVE: Does not Clause 50 merely deal with superannuation rights? I gathered that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was to ask the Minister to tell us something of the policy of the Government, in relation to those people who are now employed by public assistance authorities, when the new régime is instituted and the Unemployment Assistance Board takes over the whole business. The right hon. Gentleman would render a very great service to these people if he could on this Clause, which I understand provides the money, make some statement as to the intentions of the Government with respect to them.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think I ought to say that I am not quite sure that that would be in order on this Clause.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It is quite true that Clause 50 deals with this matter, though rather narrowly from the point of view of superannuation, and there is also on the Paper an Amendment to the Fifth Schedule to deal with it. But it could just as well be dealt with on this Clause, which deals with the matter in a broader way. As long, however, as we can get a guarantee that a definite statement will be made, that is all that we want.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to raise an entirely different point, which I think will interest any member of the Public Accounts Committee who may happen to be present, as to the position of the Treasury and the very curious difference between the powers of the Treasury under Part I and under Part II. We see that under Clause 46 the consent of the Treasury is required before contributions are made to the Unemployment Assistance Fund such as are necessary to enable the board to defray its payments and carry out its duties. This, apparently, is the first time in Part II that the Treasury appears. I would contrast that with the procedure under Part I. Under Part I the
Statutory Committee makes a report, say with regard to amending the benefits, and that report cannot be brought before the House until the Minister has approved it after consultation with the Treasury. Under Part II the Unemployment Assistance Board makes grant regulations, which the Minister can bring before us without any consultation whatever with the Treasury. Thus the Treasury is confronted with this curious position, that we may have approved regulations containing scales for allowances which the Treasury has not necessarily seen. So far as this part of the Bill is concerned, there is nothing that necessitates consultation with the Treasury before an Estimate is about to be produced which we are to pass in order that the fund may have the money with which to implement the regulations. I freely grant that, in a sane world, there would be consultation with the Treasury at every point, but that the Bill should contain no demand that such consultation should take place is, I submit, a grave defect.
No one knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer the elaborate precautions that are taken to prevent Members of Parliament from initiating any expenditure whatever, but in this case we are to go to the length of approving regulations which involve expenditure without any consultation with or approval from the Treasury. When the Treasury is asked to give its consent to an Estimate after we in Parliament have laid down the scale, clearly the Treasury cannot control the expenditure and control in these circumstances is purely fictitious. I raise this point, not because I want the unemployed to receive less benefit, but because it is fundamentally important for the sake of the unemployed that any promises made to them under the regulations should be capable of being implemented by the money being there. The only security that the money is there is that the Treasury, before the regulations are passed, shall have been consulted about them. No doubt the point has been considered, and the Chancellor will be able to explain to us why there is this singular differentiation between the procedure of Part I and that of Part II. As it stands, I think it needs explanation, and, if the point is one which the Chancellor has not had the opportunity of considering, perhaps he would kindly look into it before Report
and let us know whether it is his considered desire that the procedure should be as laid down in the Bill.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: May we take it definitely from the Minister, as regards the question of the transfer of officers and the question of salaries and other items, that if we let this Clause go those questions can be dealt with on the Fifth Schedule?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Minister says that the intention is to review the appointments to appeal tribunals each year, and he drew the analogy of the courts of referees. Are we to understand that all that procedure will be carried out? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is the practice now, as regards the appointment of chairmen, to consult the Trades Union Congress and other bodies. At any rate, there is some consultation as to these appointments, not merely of the chairmen, but also of members of the court, and I was wondering whether it is the intention to continue to follow that procedure in full. Is it the intention of the Minister, while not binding himself to take any nominee, to consult other interests than merely his own interests in regard to these appointments? Further, as the Minister knows, while at the present time the chairman of a court of referees is not always a lawyer, in 99 cases out of 100 a lawyer does occupy the chair, and I should like to know whether in the case of these tribunals it is the intention of the Ministry in the main to appoint solicitors to this particular job? A third question that I should like to ask is with regard to the rates of remuneration. I take it that the rates of remuneration for these chairmen of appeal boards will be the same as in the case of chairmen of courts of referees. I should be grateful if the Minister could see his way to give me an answer on these three points.

6.42 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: All of these questions will really come up on the Sixth Schedule, but I can give the hon. Gentleman some answer now to the questions which he has raised. It is not my intention necessarily to appoint lawyers. It is perfectly true, as he says, that the chairmen of courts of referees are usually lawyers, for the very good reason that the points which they have to decide are
largely legal points. A lawyer would not be disqualified for the post of chairman of one of these tribunals, and I think it will probably be the case that the practice which prevails on this matter in regard to the chairmen of courts of referees will also be the practice in regard to the appeal tribunals. The only obligation which the Sixth Schedule puts upon me is that:
Of the two other members of an appeal tribunal, one shall be appointed by the Unemployment Assistance Board from a panel of persons nominated by the Minister to represent workpeople, and the other shall be appointed by the board to represent the board.
With regard to the chairmen, I do not bind myself at all to consult anybody or everybody, but I shall naturally take such steps as I can to secure the men whom I think best suited for the work which they are to undertake, and, therefore, I shall not be impervious to suggestions which may be made to me. The question of the chairmen's remuneration will be better dealt with when we come to the Schedule.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) is disturbed because it appears to him that the allowances that will be payable under this part of the Act will be governed by regulations. The regulations, of course, are not dealt with in this Clause but in Clause 51, and the hon. Member does not find in that Clause any specific mention of the Treasury. But it must not be assumed, because the Treasury is not specifically mentioned there, that it is left out. The Minister has to present the regulations to this House either in the form recommended to him by the board or modified by him, and in the ordinary normal procedure a Minister acting on behalf of the Government necessarily speaks after consultation with the Treasury. The hon. Member may rest assured that before any regulations are presented to Parliament they will have been the subject of consultation with the Treasury.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: Before we reach Clause 51, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the simple fact that we have already passed Clause 17, which compels a Minister to submit an Order that he proposes making to the Treasury
and to consult them before he submits it to the House. Clearly, in interpreting an Act, if in one case the Minister is statutorily compelled to consult the Treasury, and in the other there is a very deliberate omission, readers will naturally conclude that there is some purpose in that omission. Either omit it in both cases, on the justifiable theory that the Minister will take sane precautions in consulting the Treasury, or else put it in in both cases on the ground that you must lay down by Statute what should be the correct position of the Treasury.

Mr. LAWSON: I can assure the hon. Member that he does not need any assurance from the Government upon that point. There is no danger whatever of the Department getting past the Treasury in these matters.

CLAUSE 47.—(Penalty for fraudulently obtaining allowance and recovery of over-payments.)

6.49 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I beg to move, in page 42, line 38, after "person," to insert:
or for the purpose of preventing an applicant obtaining such allowance or for the purpose of reducing the amount of the allowance.
The Clause provides that, if a person makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an allowance, he is liable on conviction to a period of imprisonment not exceeding three months. The purpose of the Amendment is to impose a similar penalty upon anyone who makes a false statement against an applicant for an allowance. If the Government do not accept this Amendment, their refusal will expose them to very unpleasant charges. We do not take great exception to the board protecting itself against false statements by the applicant, but an unemployed person ought to be protected against malicious persons who, merely for the purpose of tormenting him, may lay false charges which may lead to most unpleasant consequences, because he will be brought up before the tribunal and may be subject to civil disabilities. Why should a workman be exposed to a disability from which an employer is exempt? If a workman tells a lie, he is
liable to be sent to gaol. If an employer tells a lie, he has not even to answer for it.
It must not be thought for a moment that all who come under Part II will not have left employment. A man can leave employment and immediately come under Part II because he will have exhausted his title to benefit under Part I. So that if, after losing his employment, an employer makes certain statements to the unemployment assistance officer against the person who has lost employment, the man ought to have some protection against a malicious employer. One must assume that in many cases a quarrel has arisen, otherwise the man would not have left his work. We have some experience of this under the present administration. I have known very many instances where employers have made statements on the buff forms. Asked to state why the man has left his employment, the employer says "Misconduct." There is no obligation on him to prove the charge. He has not even to detail it. He merely says the man lost his employment through misconduct. An employer ought to be subject in this case to the same penalties as are imposed upon the applicant for benefit. To carry the point further, a neighbour of the applicant, or any other person, may have his knife in him. Any manager of an Employment Exchange will tell you that week by week he gets shoals of anonymous letters from all sorts of people making all kinds of accusations against unemployed people. Usually he has the good sense not to take any notice of anonymous correspondence. In this case also I assume that no notice will be taken of such correspondence. If a charge is made by any person against an applicant for benefit, he ought to have some protection. There is no redress open to him.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Member aware that an employer would be liable to an action for damages if he entered the word "misconduct" deliberately?

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be right. If such a penalty is possible, do I understand that it is also possible against any person?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes.

Mr. BEVAN: Why is it not here?

Mr. O'CONNOR: It is a criminal offence.

Mr. BEVAN: Then, if you make it a criminal offence for an applicant for benefit, why not make it a criminal offence for an employer?

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. Member misunderstands me. I was pointing out that he was not accurate when he said that there was no redress against the employer. There is.

Mr. BEVAN: It is a redress which lies outside the scope of an ordinary unemployed person. Who prosecutes in that case? Not the police.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Has the hon. Member not heard of the Poor Persons Rules, under which members of the legal profession deal with cases such as this, and are quite ready and willing to lend their services?

Mr. BEVAN: I am mindful of what members of the legal profession do under that Act. I am also aware, from personal experience, of the great difficulty sometimes of getting cases taken up. I am very anxious not to traduce the legal profession. They do very useful work, but the ordinary unemployed man knows nothing at all about that. It is too complicated. It is too remote. He has to excite all sort of people's interest before he can get that done. The ordinary man knows nothing at all of what he is entitled to, or lawyers would not get the handsome fees that they do. The ordinary man gains nothing at all by prosecuting. This lays an obligation on the Unemployment Assistance Board to prosecute the applicant. We want to impose an obligation upon the board to prosecute a man who lays a false charge against the applicant. We want to protect the applicant against persecution. A man's relations with his neighbours are not always harmonious. There may be a quarrel, and the other man may send in a letter or make a charge against him.
Unemployment assistance officers will have great powers under the Clause. They need only make a charge against a man who applies for assistance in order to put him to the unpleasant necessity of appearing before the tribunal, and the tribunal is of such a character that he cannot secure adequate defence. He cannot cross-examine and he has no one there to assist him in his defence. It is not a court of law, but a secret tribunal.
He has not even the protection of publicity. A man would hesitate to come into a court of law and tell a lie, because he might be exposed, but this is not a public tribunal. A man can tell a lie against another person and escape the consequences even of publicity. This is a narrow point but a very important one, and I urge hon. Members to give it sympathetic consideration and not arm anyone with powers to torment these people, who are already sufficiently tormented by prolonged unemployment.

7 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I should like to say one word in support of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I do not entirely share his apprehension about employers, but I think there is a great deal in what he says about malicious misrepresentations. He drew an analogy with the manager of an Employment Exchange who receives a large number of malicious communications. I think that this is even more true of public assistance at the present time, and it is much more effective in the case of public assistance, because the public assistance officer has a great deal more discretion than the manager of the Employment Exchange as to the amount to be given to the applicant. Those hon. Members who represent depressed areas where a large number of people are in receipt of public assistance know such cases well, and all of us have had experience of people coming to us who have been denied public assistance, or the usual rate of public assistance, because of anonymous letters or reports that have reached the public assistance officers from an unknown source. It is very difficult to trace such reports, and in some cases it is difficult to know the grounds on which public assistance officers have started to make inquiries.
There is no doubt, however, that this kind of thing exists, and the fact was admitted by the Minister himself, when he introduced this Bill, in a passage which hon. Members will clearly recollect. Speaking about the Poor Law, he used the expression "This whispering-gallery of gossip.' I have always remembered this striking phrase, and there may well be something like a whispering-gallery of gossip in relation to Part II of this Bill, and the public assistance officer. We all know that there are people who
make it their business to carry tales about applicants for public assistance, and they may in the future carry tales about applicants for relief under Part II of this Bill. People who spread false rumours in that direction should, in my view—and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment—be under exactly the same penalties as those who make false statements in order to get an allowance under the Act.

7.3 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I rise only to ask one question, and I hope it will be answered either by the learned Attorney-General or by the hon. and learned Member who has reassured the Committee that there is no need for the Amendment because, if the employer or some other person makes a false representation against an unemployed person, the man has his remedy in a civil action for damages. Will one of the hon. and learned Members inform the Committee what such an action, brought in the civil courts, would cost the unemployed person?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Nothing.

Miss RATHBONE: Would it cost nothing even if he lost his case? It is not my experience in cases brought under the Poor Persons' Defence Act that they do not cost the poor person nothing, especially if he had any distance to go; or that Poor Persons' Defence is adequate in covering the whole cost of a case. Moreover, the case has to be brought by an unemployed man who, presumably, has not even the means provided by unemployment allowance, because ipso facto and ex hypothesi he has failed to get the unemployment allowance. I only wish to find out—and this is a genuine question, and not a rhetorical one—whether the civil remedy open to these persons is at all equivalent to the remedy which will be open to them under this Amendment.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support the Amendment. I am glad that the hon. Lady raised her question. While we know that the Poor Persons' Rules provide for possibilities of assistance in actions of the description referred to, the fact remains—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Members who are present know
it well—that the average man is not aware of these facilities and the trouble to which he is put in order to obtain them. Far be it from me to suggest that that trouble is being made by the legal profession, for I know that the legal profession is anxious—I say this with full knowledge—to assist in those cases. That is, however, not quite the point. It is not at all a question of the legal profession, but of the approach by the individual himself and his lack of knowledge of the method of approach, which is oft-times so difficult for him that he leaves the case alone entirely. That is an important matter from the point of view of the person who is applying for relief.
I believe that an equivalent punishment to that which is imposed upon the applicant himself in this Bill does not fall, as the law stands at present, upon the person who knowingly lodges false statements to prevent a man from obtaining the relief which is due to him. The whole point is whether the Committee considers it advisable and necessary that a man should be liable to criminal proceedings for a statement that he has knowingly made to prevent an applicant from obtaining relief, or whether hon. Members are satisfied that the civil remedy is sufficient in itself. In my view, with the greatest respect to those hon. Members who feel that it is, the civil remedy is very difficult to obtain, in spite of the generous assistance of the Law Society and of the Poor Persons' Committee in such cases.

Mr. COVE: What damages would a man receive?

Mr. JANNER: I do not know what the damages would be in a specific case; no doubt the hon. and learned Members could give an answer to that question, though possibly even they would not be able to agree on the amount which would be given in a specific case. That, however, is not the point. The man may be able to get damages, but his difficulty in obtaining them, with all the assistance that is forthcoming, is so great that, although it has occasionally been done, it is very rare for a man in that position actually to take the step of bringing a civil action. Suppose an ill-disposed person sets himself out deliberately and definitely to prevent an applicant from obtaining relief. He may be a poor man himself and not in a position to pay
damages. Is it fair that the only action which will lie against him should be the ordinary civil remedy?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Has my hon. Friend forgotten that there is such a thing as a criminal prosecution available?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Not, in Scotland; there is no criminal prosecution in Scotland.

Mr. JANNER: It should be made clear in the Act. When an applicant institutes criminal proceedings for libel, he has to take very considerable care what he is doing. According to the Amendment, the duty would lie on the authorities themselves, having satisfied themselves that a man had knowingly given information of that description, to take the steps which are dealt with in the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands, I would respectifully point out to him that he should reconsider the position, or at least give us an assurance now that by the time we reach the Report stage an obligation shall be placed upon the person laying information, and a redress shall be made available against that person—without the necessity for the applicant to take any serious and difficult proceedings—equivalent to the remedy at present given to the board against the applicant.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would make a plea to the Minister to see whether nothing can be done in this case. The law as it stands at the moment is, as far as I know, that a person has an action against some other person for a slanderous statement when that slanderous statement has the effect of his being refused benefit, and a case has been decided by the courts. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), was requested to alter the law, but declined to do so, and said that the aggrieved person should be left to his civil remedy. The same is true in regard to unemployment benefit, but I ask hon. Members to note the difference. At the present time the only case which occurs is that of an employer who gives information about a man. In the great majority of cases the employer has assets, and therefore damages can be obtained from him. Now, however, the law is changed by Part II,
and it is not merely an employer who lodges certain statements against an applicant, but anyone may now lodge them.
I would put it to the hon. and learned Member who interrupted, and who naturally will have regard to law and procedure, that at present when a man has a statement made against him that statement is submitted to him in writing, so that he knows exactly what statement the employer has made against him and has evidence on which to found an action against the employer on that statement. Here, however, he does not get a statement in writing; he has no right to get it in writing. In other words, when he is summoned before the board under this Act, the statement made against him is not necessarily submitted to him before he appears, as is a statement made by an employer under Part I. I submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a tremendous difference here from the legal point of view. There can always be argument about what a man says, but when the statement is made definitely in writing there can be no argument.
The second important difference, therefore, is that the law is now changed, and anybody may make a statement. At present, roughly speaking, the opportunity is confined to employers, but under this Part a man's wife may make a statement against him; a man's sister, relative, neighbour or anyone can write in and say that he has done certain things or not done other things and that therefore he is not entitled to receive benefit. The hon. and learned Gentleman who interrupted me said that an action can be taken for criminal libel. I do not know much about the English law, and I stand open to correction, but as far as I know, two courses are open to a man. Either the Public Prosecutor has to take up the case on his behalf, or he himself may take it up. If he himself takes it up, he has either to prove that he is a poor person or, if he is not poor enough, he has himself to pay every penny of the cost of the prosecution.
In Scotland it is different. We have no criminal libel. I have often felt at election times that I have been slandered, and that terrible things have been said about me which were not true. In England a person would be criminally prosecuted, and, therefore,
would not dare to do such things. At all events, the fear of being criminally prosecuted is a definite limitation in this country, but in Scotland a person can say what he likes about anybody, and the only recourse one has against him is a civil action for damages. A civil action might not have any effect because, even if you obtained a decree, it might not be enforceable, because there might not be any assets. Consequently, the people concerned in this question are to be left to be slandered by anybody. To such persons the consequences are grave. Such men cannot take criminal action in this country, or civil procedings in Scotland, against the persons uttering the slander, because they usually have no assets. Consequently a man is left open to the most terrible things.
I do not know whether hon. Members generally realise the kind of thing that goes on. Each morning the manager of an Employment Exchange, or the clerk of a Poor Law authority, opens the post, terrible statements are often found to have been made by some people against others, sometimes arising out of politics, and frequently, in some districts, arising out of religious issues. If action is taken on such evidence, a man's benefit may be stopped, and afterwards it may be found that the information was entirely false. I recall a case of an application for Poor Law relief being made by a woman who was refused certain relief on the ground that she had had an illegitimate child by a man whose position did not entitle her to make the application. We took the matter up, and the Poor Law inspector said that we were right. The Scottish Office appointed one of His Majesty's sheriffs to hold an inquiry, and when the matter was gone into it was found that there was not a shadow of foundation for what had been said about the woman. Yet we had not a vestige of a case against the person who had made the statement because we could not take criminal action. If you are to put terrible penalties upon the recipients of this money, surely those who may make serious charges against them should not merely lay themselves open to a civil action. If you are to see that one class of people are dealt with, at least those
who slander and state untruths should be dealt with.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I think that the Minister would be well-advised to accept the Amendment. Anyone with a knowledge of Poor Law must be aware of the malicious statements which are often made, and of the fact that there is no redress for the ordinary common folk in the way of going to law in such cases. Poor Law authorities, which often deal with thousands of cases in a week, frequently come across letters which are libellous and do an injustice to the persons about whom they complain. The incorporation of the Amendment would be invaluable, while the hanging up of notices as described under the Clause would also have a good effect. It is not a figment of imagination when I say that I have come across thousands of cases of people who have been anxious to do an injury to really bona fide applicants. Sometimes they go to such lengths that they not only send in a letter, but they give their proper name and address so that one can go and question them. When one discovers that they are liars, it is because there is enmity between families, and one member is trying to injure another. These are the ordinary affairs of life. There is often enmity between parents and children caused by inter-marriage and such-like difficulties.
I am not in favour of a person receiving benefit to which he is not entitled, but where a bona fide person makes a claim there should be no aunt, mother-in-law or father-in-law doing the nosey Parker business by sending a letter, as they sometimes do, to the relieving officer. Sitting on a board I have had as many as 40 or 50 letters, each containing the name of the writer, making charges against particular persons. Such persons ought to be in the asylum. They are very dangerous, and at least there ought to be some power over them which would keep them from making malicious slanders against applicants. If the Minister will look into the matter, he will find that there is a great deal in it. Public assistance authorities throughout the country are often inundated by that kind of letter, and relieving officers, who have great responsibilities and great ability, are out until midnight two or
three times a week trying to verify some of these malicious statements. If there were a penalty, and action could be taken, these cases would not arise. There is something in the Amendment, and, with my experience of the Poor Law, I am convinced that it might do good.

7.24 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): Every Member of the Committee must obviously detest the kind of man with which the Amendment is framed to deal, that is to say, a man, be he an employer or be he a labourer, whatever his motive may be, such as malice based on family or religious differences, as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) suggested, who knowingly makes a statement which is designed to prevent some one from getting the proper allowance which he should get. But I venture to put before the Committee certain reasons why, in spite of that position, the Amendment is really one which raises very wide issues on our general law, and cannot be accepted. What is in the Bill already is, I think, following on Section 22 of the 1920 Act, and is, of course, in accordance with our general criminal law. People, be they employed persons or employers, or anyone else, who get money by false pretence, commit a crime. This really is a particular example of that general principle of our criminal law. The Amendment would create quite a new type of crime hitherto unknown to our law. It may be—I do not suggest it for a moment—that our criminal law ought to have, in all circumstances of life, very much wider scope than it has at present, but I wish to stress to the Committee that this is introducing a fundamentally new principle into our criminal law.

Major MILNER: What is the new principle?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The new principle is, that a man who makes a false statement, not on oath, calculated to do someone else damage commits a crime. That is not the position now. My hon. Friend said that a false and defamatory statement might be criminal libel, but I say that a false statement, which may not be defamatory, calculated to damage another person is not at present a crime by the law of this country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Surely the case is stronger?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think so. Telling a lie, even though it damages someone, is not a crime.

Mr. LOGAN: That is why we have so many liars then.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It may or may not be. What I was trying to put before the Committee was the general position in our law, and the fact that the Amendment would introduce into one special set of circumstances, and with regard to one particular inquiry, a new crime. It would raise at once very wide issues. Why stop here? Take the case of a man, the malicious kind of person we are talking about, some malicious neighbour who makes some false statement which prevents a man getting a job, that is perhaps just as damaging as a false statement made in this particular case. He might make a false statement about a man which might prevent his being taken on by a landlord in respect of a house. He might say he was an undesirable tenant and thereby inflict great hardship. One might multiply hundreds of cases of this kind.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You prosecute a man because he gets benefit by making a false statement, but you do not prosecute in the other case.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We prosecute anybody who gets money by a false statement.

Mr. A. BEVAN: You are not only punishing the applicant for benefit, but if any person on his behalf makes a statement he is liable to three months' imprisonment. Is not that an extension of the existing position?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that is the form of the Act of 1920, and that it meets the case where the allowance may be for a son.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is a completely new crime.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is a completely new crime. With his great legal knowledge and acumen he will admit that any novelty there might be in introducing that principle is incomparable with the novelty of the principle that would be introduced by this Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Member has not met my point. I could understand an applicant for benefit being liable to three months' imprisonment for making a false statement in order to obtain benefit for himself, but any other person giving evidence on his behalf—it may be a trade union official—is also liable to a similar penalty.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps I was a little too ready in agreeing with the hon. and learned Member that this constituted a new crime. It would be impossible to conceive of two persons coming along and making false statements one on behalf of the other without there being a conspiracy between them.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been to the court of referees thousands of times. An applicant tells me certain things—sometimes it is a claim in respect of a child—and I have gone to court and stated things which turn out to be wrong. Lawyers go to court and are informed by their clients of certain things which afterwards are found to be wrong. I make such a statement decently in court, and it is proved to be untrue. Although there has been no conspiracy, I am now told that if I do that with the best intention, I am to be guilty of a crime, but if a lawyer does the same for his client he is not so guilty.

7.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member has misunderstood the position. The case which he has quoted has nothing whatever to do with the words in the Clause, "knowingly makes a false statement." We all deplore the sort of activity which has been referred to, but on the broad principle that the Amendment would create a new crime it is impossible to accept it. It would raise issues for the general extension of the criminal law. The way in which hon. Members have stressed the extraordinary volume of those anonymous or signed malicious statements which descend on public assistance authorities is in itself a protection. Those responsible for administering public assistance or acting as officers of the Board will not pay the slightest attention to epistles of that kind. There has been no demand so far as I know from local authorities who,
ever since this duty has been placed upon them have been faced with the same problem, for the special criminal power which the Amendment would seek to introduce into our law. I was asked a specific question by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) with regard to a case brought within the Poor Person's Rule, and I said I thought the cost to the applicant would be nothing or, at any rate, negligible. If the Rules are not generous enough and if there are difficulties with regard to the applicant getting into touch with the proper people, then the right course to adopt is not to create a new criminal offence but to alter the Rules and to see that those people do get access so that they may have their cases represented.

7.37 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. and learned Member's argument seems to be an extraordinarily weak one. He started off by admitting the danger and the gravamen of the difficulties which arise.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member misrepresents me by saying that I admitted that there was danger. I said that everybody must be indignant with regard to people who try to do this kind of thing, but it was not in my mind to suggest that there is any special danger.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Then the hon. and learned Member denies what is known to everybody to be a fact, and that is, that danger does arise. When action is taken the man is not accused of these things openly and publicly and he has no opportunity of cross-examining anybody who makes the statement. He does not know who has made the statement. He is tried in his absence on the weight of statements of which he has absolutely no knowledge. Anything more completely contrary to one's idea of English justice it is impossible to imagine. There are the circumstances of the trial in which the whole of his livelihood is at issue, a matter which is absolutely vital to him. He is accused, and it is said that if someone makes a false statement he may bring a civil action against him or proceed for criminal libel. So far as criminal libel is concerned I presume that that was put in as a joke. Imagine an unemployed man who has the
resources to start prosecution for criminal libel, out of which he can get no damages, the whole cost of which he has to pay, proceedings which do not come within any poor person's procedure, and in connection with which he is unable to get the assistance of any poor person's rules. If he can get the Director of Public Prosecutions to take up the matter, well and good; he will have no expenses to pay, but let us imagine some unemployed man in a remote district being able to get the Director of Public Prosecutions to take up a criminal libel action on the strength of documents which he has never seen and the existence of which he only suspects. It is perfectly fantastic.
The question of bringing a civil action puts him into the same difficulty, because he does not know what it is. All that he knows is that someone at some time has made a false statement against him by reason of which he has suffered. He has no power of discovery. He cannot get the letter produced. He cannot go to court and get an order for the production of the document. There is absolutely no protection for him of any sort or kind in regard to proceedings in camera, to which he has not access. In these circumstances, the Solicitor-General says that the Amendment will raise a new principle of criminal law which may have wide repercussions and, therefore, we cannot indulge in it. I suggest that the whole method of trying these cases is introducing a completely new principle into the laws of this country. If you are going to choose to introduce new principles of Star Chamber into this procedure—and it is Star Chamber in its worst form—you must also introduce principles Of protection in order that people may not unduly suffer from these Star Chamber proceedings. What is the argument of the hon. and learned Member against the introduction in these cases of a power by which the board, a responsible body, can, if they ascertain that false statements have been made for the purpose of damaging a person who is trying to get assistance, take action? What is the principle that determines that that power shall not be given to the board?
The hon. and learned Member says that it is an extension of the criminal law. It is within the present Clause that a person who attempts to obtain money for himself is liable. The Solicitor-General
may say there was a similar Section in the earlier Act; that is immaterial. Here is a case where the man is not trying to obtain money for himself but where he makes a statement in a case where he is trying to assist someone else to get what he believes he is entitled to. In the course of that proceeding he knowingly makes a false statement, which everybody would reprobate, but that would not be a criminal offence. He is not doing it on oath. He is only telling a lie to try and help a friend. The hon. and learned Member does not suggest that at present it is criminal to tell a lie to help a friend. That is all that the man is doing. What about the other side of the picture, namely, telling a lie to hurt a friend? If you penalise people by making them liable to three months' imprisonment by a court of summary jurisdiction because they tell a lie to help a friend, it should be equally right to penalise a person if he tells a lie to hurt a friend or an enemy. There is no such provision which would save the Clause from appearing entirely one-sided, as it undoubtedly will appear to the unemployed man. The Clause seeks to penalise him and his friends but does not penalise his detractors, whoever they may be. Surely the Minister is not going to allow that impression to get out as regards the enforcement of this Clause. It is important, whether there may or may not be many prosecutions, that every unemployed man should feel that he is being treated justly and that the Whole weight is not being put into one balance of the scale.
This is a matter of vital importance, and I implore the Minister to take steps so that the unemployed man can feel that he is getting protection, and that if people are trying to detract from his benefit there will be power to protect him against it. That is all that we ask. Otherwise, the man is absolutely at the mercy of anyone who likes to make a false statement. It may be said that the board will not pay attention to these statements, as a rule, and in 99 cases out of 100 they will not pay attention to them, but there is always a feeling of danger to the unemployed man, and there is a feeling that unless the Government accept the Amendment they will not be using their influence and power to protect the unemployed man from that danger. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, or some similar words,
which will enable him to say to the unemployed, "We are going to see that you are protected against people making false statements in order to take away your benefit." I think this is more vital to an unemployed man than anything else, because you take away from him his only means of subsistence. It is far more vital to him in many ways than libel or slander. Once it becomes known that a man's benefit has been taken from him he is marked as having done something undesirable, and in the circumstances I hope that the Minister will be prepared to do something and will not make us go to a Division on this point as we otherwise shall do.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has expressed his indignation at the contemptible offence of saying something about an unemployed man which will have the effect of preventing him from getting his benefit. That indignation is shared by everybody, and no doubt it is a contemptible offence. But what the hon. and learned Member has not done is to answer any of the arguments advanced by the Solicitor-General. The whole of his remarks were really an attack upon the procedure; he is merely using this Amendment as a peg upon which to hang an attack upon the procedure which takes place when claims are investigated. If it were in order that might be desirable, and I feel strongly that there may be something to be said for a procedure which is more judicial in its nature and which perhaps to some extent would bring in the law of perjury to cover some of the statements which are made in these proceedings. But that is not the present Amendment. The hon. and learned Member is too good a lawyer not to realise that a notable innovation of the law is involved. At the present moment you can say that a man has a venereal disease, and say it falsely, but the person who says so cannot be brought before a criminal court, in the same way as this Amendment would deal with a person who has said something which has prevented a man obtaining unemployment benefit. You can say that a married woman is not chaste without incurring the penalty which this Amendment imposes upon anybody who makes a false statement about an unemployed person.
You may say that an unmarried woman is not chaste, and all kinds of atrocious lies about your political opponent at an election without incurring similar penalties to those imposed by the Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, it would admit a breach in the existing law of libel and slander so extensive that it would be impossible to allow other anomalies to exist where they are. Obviously, you cannot make a lie a criminal offence by a side-wind in an Unemployment Insurance Act. A far-reaching change of that kind ought to be carried out in a different way and not by an Amendment on a subsidiary Clause in a Bill like this.

7.51 p.m.

Major MILNER: It is astonishing to hear the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham Central (Mr. O'Connor) talk about introducing innovations into our law. The Government have introduced many new offences for which the subject can be fined and imprisoned. For instance, if he sells milk at less than the fixed price. But here the learned Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member are protesting against a perfectly proper and reasonable safeguard which it is desired to introduce into the Bill. What remedy has a man who is traduced in this way. I have had some experience of the matters which are dealt with in Part I of the Bill. Some years ago I was interested in a case where the employer had signed the buff form to the effect that an employé had been discharged for misconduct. It was an out-rageous case. A transport driver who had worked between 60 and 70 hours during the week declined, under special circumstances and provocation to continue driving any longer—I forget the precise circumstances—and it was alleged, untruthfully, that he had been guilty of misconduct. He was fortunate in having a trade union behind him, and he was advised by a distinguished ex-Member of this House to bring an action for libel. He did so, and the judge decided that it was a case of qualified privilege, and a special jury, composed for the most part of employers, decided that there was no malice. Costs were awarded against that individual amounting to something like £1,200. He had no remedy, and he has suffered considerably since.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That man would not have been punished under the Amendment you want to put into the Bill.

Major MILNER: I am suggesting that he would have been punished. If that employer knowingly made a false statement to the effect that the applicant had been guilty of misconduct, then he would come within the ambit of the Amendment, privilege would not enter into the matter at all, and he would come before a court of summary jurisdiction and be liable to imprisonment.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me. If it could be proved in a criminal court that he knowingly made a false statement then it would be equally possible to prove in a civil court that he had done so maliciously, and the fact that the jury acquitted him and found that he had not made the statement maliciously is absolutely conclusive that he would never have been convicted in a criminal court.

Major MILNER: The hon. and learned Member knows quite well that different principles apply in a civil court to those which apply in a criminal court. The question of malice would not enter into this matter at all. It entered into the civil proceedings, and "malice" and "knowingly" are two entirely different things. I submit that there is no other safeguard than a provision of this sort for a man who is dealt with under Part II. He will not even know the statement that has been made unless the information is given him, or he is informed at the exchange that certain statements have been made against him. Suppose he is informed, when his case comes before the tribunal, that a false statement has been made against him and he is in a position to prove that it was made knowingly, he has no remedy of any kind. He cannot get damages against his employer.
I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would accept the Amendment because of the deterrent effect it would have on employers. There are, of course, only a minority of employers who would knowingly make a false statement against an individual applying for relief, but these cases certainly do occur before the public assistance committee, and I suggest that the Amendment would have a deterrent effect on that class of em-
ployer and would be a safeguard to a man against having libellous and untrue statements made against him. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham with regard to the Poor Persons Act and the opportunities which are afforded under it, and while I know that in my part of the country great efforts are made to help poor persons in this respect I am not sure whether applications for libel proceedings are favourably received, involving as they do considerable expense, possibly very difficult proceedings, with small results. However, I suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that if it is right for an unemployed man to be subjected to this penalty in the event of making a false statement there can be no reasonable objection why the same provision should not be inserted with regard to false statements knowingly made by his employer.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I feel shocked at some of the statements which have been made with regard to the position of these people. May I deal first with the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner), who I believe is a member of my own profession. There is no privilege known to the law in matters of defamation, libel or slander, in making a statement which you know to be untrue, and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) when he stated the situation with regard to statements which are in writing. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) in the midst of all that he is doing lately has forgotten that there is an action well known to the law under which you may claim damages for a false statement, apart from defamation altogether, which is made maliciously with intent to injure another person, and I cannot conceive a simpler case than that dealt with in this Clause where a person deliberately makes a misstatement of fact which he knows to be untrue with the object of depriving one of these poor applicants of the money which we all desire he should get. I cannot conceive a simpler or easier case.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who is to take action?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: There is no difficulty about that. Actions of this nature are constantly being taken, and very frequently they are taken by organisations of one sort or another. We know that all you have to do, if you cannot come within that category and cannot get anyone to support you with money, such as a trade union or an unemployed workers' association or any of the societies which exist for the purpose of giving advice and assisting people—all you have to do is to go to the committee which administers the poor persons rules, and they give you a certificate which is easily obtained, as a result of which you get free legal advice and assistance.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Will the hon. and learned Member allow me to intervene?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: No, I shall not give way. This is not question and answer. I am trying to give to the Committee some assistance on these various points. The other question is, what then is to be done? I look at Section 22 of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, and I find a provision which is almost similar in words to this. It deals with the question of "knowingly," and is intended to hit people who, in the language of the learned Solicitor-General, are attempting by false pretences—that is what it really comes to—to get money. But is it not very much more to the benefit of the man who has suffered from this sort of thing, not that the individual who is sought to be brought within the Clause by this Amendment should go to prison, should be fined, but that the man who has suffered by his action should bring him before a civil court, where an award may be made in favour of the man who has suffered?
That is the distinction between the civil remedy and the criminal remedy. If he is so fortunate as to find the man concerned is an employer, he may get, and will get, in circumstances such as we are discussing, an award of damages which would amply compensate the individual who has suffered. If the man concerned happens to be someone of less pecuniary position, there are means known to the law by which if you get au order against such a person it can be enforced so that at all events the remedy is no idle one but is really and truly effective. In those circumstances it seems to me
that this Amendment is really aimed at a position which does not arise. It would open the door to all sorts of other questions which would make an extremely difficult situation. As to that I agree entirely with the learned Solicitor-General.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) has devoted most of his speech to admitting that it is desirable that an unemployed man should be protected against his traducers, and the other part of his speech he devoted to the contention that there are available to the unemployed man ample opportunities for protecting himself. If that be so the hon. and learned Member will agree with the provision to make it absolutely beyond peradventure that the man is so protected. Why then does he resist the Amendment? The Amendment is that the Unemployment Assistance Board shall prosecute.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: The hon. Member has omitted to observe that the word in the Sub-section is not "shall" but "may."

Mr. BEVAN: Everyone knows that the Board, if they find that a man has broken the law, would be under an obligation to prosecute. I did accord to the hon. and learned Gentleman a courtesy which he did not accord to me, but he has not added to the position at all by his interruption. The position is that these poor unemployed persons have no protection at all. I do not want to use harsh language, but the hon. and learned Gentleman really is so far remote from the position of an ordinary unemployed man that his observations are not relevant at all. When he talks about an unemployed man prosecuting people in the civil courts or in the criminal courts, he really is wasting the time of the Committee. He is merely drawing a red herring across the trail.
Lawyers have talked on this subject for three-quarters of an hour, and have discussed the various means available to the unemployed man to protect himself against his traducers. Almost all the lay Members of this Committee know very well that such a protection is not worth the breath wasted on it. We are anxious to secure that protection for a
man under the law, but, of course, we know that the Committee are not prepared to concede it. Local assistance officers will be provided with as many spies as possible, and the more spies there are the less chance there is of redress being obtained.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 263.

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
White, Henry Graham


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McGovern, John



Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Alexander, Sir William
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hepworth, Joseph


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cross, R. H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hornby, Frank


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Apsley, Lord
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Aske, Sir Robert William
Doran, Edward
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Duggan, Hubert John
Hurd, Sir Percy


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Balniel, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Jennings, Roland


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Bernays, Robert
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Everard, W. Lindsay
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Borodale, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Boulton, W. W.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Law, Sir Alfred


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Leckie, J. A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Glossop, C. W. H.
Levy, Thomas


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lewis, Oswald


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Liddall, Walter S.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Granville, Edgar
Llewellin, Major John J.


Burnett, John George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Greene, William P. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grimston, R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hanbury, Cecil
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Clarke, Frank
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McCorquodale, M. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Harbord, Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Craven-Ellis, William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
McKie, John Hamilton


Crooke, J. Smedley
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stevenson, James


Magnay, Thomas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Maitland, Adam
Ray, Sir William
Stones, James


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Strauss, Edward A.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Summersby, Charles H.


Martin, Thomas B.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Templeton, William P.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rosa Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Milne, Charles
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitcheson, G. G.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Morgan, Robert H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Turton, Robert Hugh


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Morrison, William Shepherd
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Moss, Captain H. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Munro, Patrick
Selley, Harry R.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nunn, William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


O'Connor, Terence James
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Weymouth, Viscount


Palmer, Francis Noel
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Pearson, William G.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Percy, Lord Eustace
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wise, Alfred R.


Petherick, M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.



Pybus, Sir Percy John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Radford, E. A.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spens, William Patrick



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

8.17 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 43, line 2, to leave out "whether."
It might be convenient for the Committee to take this Amendment in conjunction with the Amendment which follows it on the Paper—in page 43, line 2, to leave out "or otherwise."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that if the first Amendment is not carried the second falls.

Major MILNER: The Committee will appreciate the point raised by this Amendment The Sub-section as printed provides:
If it is found at any time that an applicant for an allowance has, whether fraudulently or otherwise, procured by the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact any issue by way of an allowance to himself or any other person in excess of that which would have been made but for the non-disclosure or misrepresentation, a sum equivalent to the excess shall be repaid by him to the board and … shall be recoverable by the board from him summarily as a civil debt.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that that shall only apply where the non-disclosure or the misrepresentation has
been fraudulent. Obviously an applicant may innocently and without any desire to commit a fraud fail to disclose certain information or may unwittingly misrepresent some fact. For example, in filling up a form in connection with the means test an applicant, through ignorance, may fail to disclose some small item of income coming into a household or may unintentionally misrepresent some point. In our view, it would be a great hardship in such cases if any amount which had been drawn in excess of the proper amount, were recoverable from the applicant as a civil debt. Suppose a man obtained £1 or £2 or even £10 in excess of what he would have obtained had he disclosed some fact or other. He spends that money on himself and his family in providing the necessaries of life. Is the board to have the power to proceed against him in the courts for the recovery of that money, even though he may not have a penny in the world, and even though he may be innocent of any desire to deceive?
Already under Sub-section (1) the penalty for fraudulently obtaining an allowance is imprisonment. The board
have that remedy, if it be a remedy, in cases of fraud. It is sought to give them this additional power of recovery in the civil courts whether the excess allowance has been obtained fraudulently or not and is to be presumed that in such a case as I have indicated a man might under the ordinary procedure have to go to prison as a result of failure to pay that sum as a civil debt. Where there is no question of fraud, in our view the board ought not to have the right of recovery. They ought to be content with the power to prosecute in the event of money being obtained fraudulently. The Minister of Labour succumbed to persuasion last night. We hope that in this case in which there is no vital principle involved, although the matter is of considerable importance to the people concerned, he will accept the Amendment either in the form proposed or in some other form. Otherwise, a great hardship will be suffered by many people.

8.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Words similar to those in the Bill will be found in the analogous provisions, as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, in the Act of 1927. I do not suggest that that fact is conclusive but I would point out that when hon. Gentlemen, now sitting opposite were sitting on this side, they introduced the Act of 1930 and, in considering the terms of that Act, no doubt the Act of 1927 was carefully scrutinised to see what alterations should be made in its terms. Apparently they came to the conclusion, to which the present Government also came, that these words did not inflict any hardship. No complaint has been made of their application in relation to unemployment insurance benefit and the Committee has already, by implication, decided that similar words should apply under Part I of this Bill because the Act of 1927 is still operative so far as Part I is concerned. Perhaps I use the wrong words when I say that the Committee has decided it by implication but in fact Part I of this Bill has been passed without any comment on the fact that the Act of 1927 applies to cases of this kind which arise there. As I say, I do not claim that that is conclusive. A point can be overlooked but it would be curious if different words were made applicable under Part II, from those which are applicable
where unemployment insurance benefit is concerned.
I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, but I agree with the spirit behind it, that it is most important that in this last case there should be no question of a man being, as you might say, caught by a misrepresentation. One safeguard against that is, as I think the Committee is entitled to hope and believe, that in such cases the board would not exercise their powers, but there is a further safeguard. I am in a position to assure the Committee that on the form which the applicant will have to fill up his attention will be drawn, and I think I may say that great care will be taken to see that it is drawn, to all material considerations dealing with the two sides of the question, his resources and his needs. Careful consideration will be given to that, and I think it is also important that there should be a warning on the form to the effect that if a man does not know or is not certain of the answer to any question, he should say so; otherwise, the man may fill up what he believes to be, say, his wife's earnings, and afterwards someone may say, "You made a misrepresentation." I think, therefore, it is only fair that the applicant should have a first warning that he is not compelled to answer these questions, and that if he does not know the answer, he should say so, and then no question of misrepresentation would arise. I think in that way it is possible to narrow the area to very small dimensions where, in fact, there can be misrepresentation without fraud.
Then, the hon. and gallant Member may say, "If it is as small as that, why not accept the Amendment?" The answer, I think, is that if the Amendment is accepted, you can only deal with cases where fraud can be proved before a court. It is in the Act of 1927, it has been thought right, and I do not think any complaint of hardship has been raised by it. The wider words are used which I agree give a wider latitude to the board, otherwise you would have definitely to prove fraud. With these words, if it is a proper case, it is sufficient to say, "Here is a misrepresentation." To some extent it leaves the thing at large, and the man does not actually have the stigma of fraud against him.

Mr. T. SMITH: Will the board have power to excuse a case if they are satisfied that the circumstances warrant it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is no question about that. That is the first safeguard which I intended to put forward. The board need never take this action, and I have suggested to the Committee that they are entitled to believe that in such a case no such action would be taken. May I add this further point with regard to the case of the poor man who is still in need of assistance, which was put by the hon. and gallant Member? It is clear that in that case this remedy would never be resorted to, because the board would be merely going to certain legal expenses in order to get with one hand what they would have to give back with the other. If the man is still in need under Part II, while proceeding against him for, say, 30s., assuming you get it, you increase his need to the extent of 30s., and if he had to pay 5s. a week as a result of these proceedings, the board would have to give him 5s. a week more in order to make up the sum which they would already have determined was the proper sum for him to receive.
Therefore, the case which we are considering, which is the only case entitled to consideration, where there has been misrepresentation which was not in fact fraudulent, the only case in which proceedings would be taken, as a matter of practical business, is the case where the man has surplus funds and where the board could proceed against him and recover the sum in question without bringing him below the level which would bring him back again to the position of a person in need under Part II. I hope, with those assurances that every care will be taken to see that a man thoroughly understands what he is being asked to state, and on the other points, the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The difference between this Amendment and the case under Part I ought to be borne in mind. Under Part I the matter is administered by the Minister and his staff, and it is far more open to be dealt with in the House than it is in this case, where we contend that the board is scarcely under the influence of the House of Commons. I must say
that I thought, from that point of view, the hon. and learned Gentleman's case was rather weak when he talked about the fact that the Labour Government had administered the previous Act. There is sometimes force in what the Members of the Government say when they draw our attention to these little past experiences, but I think the learned Solicitor-General was rather hard put to it to-night when he tried to link us to an administration of this kind. We are not interfering with the fraudulent action—we do not dispute that at all—but there are good people who get into trouble quite innocently.
We have been very pleased to have legal guidance to-night, but I am sure that those who speak in legal terms, but who have no direct experience of the administration and of the outlook of some people who have to make application, would be astonished at the difficulty that even some intelligent people have in filling up some of the forms that are put before them. Like many other hon. Members, I have had many years of experience in public life, and I should not be surprised if I myself, as a Member of the Government on two occasions, had been a party to framing some forms for people to fill in, but I must say that when I look at some of the forms that are sent out, and people ask me how they should fill them in, what this means and what that means, I confess that I am very innocent about the matter. Anyone who has seen the form which people have had to fill up during the past two years in connection with transitional payment must have been equally puzzled. It strikes me as a sort of combination of census paper and Income Tax return, and it would be very difficult for the average sensible person, looking at it in a humane way, to charge a person with giving false information if such a form was not filled up properly. The Solicitor-General says that the words "or otherwise" are intended to give some sort of margin to members of the board to enable them to use their judgment so that they need not necessarily prosecute in every case.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They give a wider field for the board, so that they do not have to be actually satisfied that there is fraud; they can, if they think it a proper case, treat it as a
case of misrepresentation. The words spread the net wider in which the board can exercise their discretion.

Mr. LAWSON: They can exercise their discretion for the benefit of the person concerned. I gather that it may work either way. It gives them latitude to decide whether there has been fraud or not. We want to emphasise that this board is not under the control of the House and everything depends upon the spirit in which this kind of thing is administered. We do not want to cover people who are guilty of deliberate fraud, and we want to use this opportunity of impressing upon the Government and asking the Government to impress upon the members of this board that a mere mistake or merely filling up a form wrongly is not to be regarded as fraud in the light of the experience in these matters. We do not want to be too stiff about the matter, but we hope that the Government will bear in mind the points that have been put when the regulations are made.

8.39 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am bound to recognise the sympathetic attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Solicitor-General to this Amendment, but I am not in the least happy about the matter, because I know, as perhaps the Solicitor-General does not, how many hundreds and thousands of cases there are every month in the courts of this country where, in circumstances precisely like the individuals concerned here, people who have drawn benefit on misrepresentations of one sort or another are prosecuted and fined and sent to prison. I do not know what the numbers are, but on the few occasions when I have gone into a police court there has rarely been one where I have not found the Ministry of Labour prosecuting in cases of this sort. They become so numerous that, although I should not like to cast any aspersions on the magistrates, I am afraid they are dealt with as a matter of course; and nowadays, if money is obtained like that, severe penalties are inflicted. However, I understand that the Government are willing to give some instructions to the board or to point out to the board the desirability of taking these steps only in proper cases, and that where an apparently innocent non-disclosure or misrepresentation has been
made they must exercise their discretion reasonably and only prosecute in extreme cases. I hope that attention will be drawn on the forms to the penalties under Clause 47 (1) for knowingly making any false statement or false representation, and under Clause 47 (2) for non-disclosure or misrepresentation, whether fraudulently or otherwise, and that it will be expressly stated that if an applicant is not clear as to an answer or certain what he should put, he should say so.

8.42 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. and gallant Member referred to the prosecutions which he had seen in the courts. Of course, those were all fraudulent cases. The comparable case to those we are considering here is that of the recovery of overpayments of transitional payments. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will be relieved to know that, in spite of the millions of determinations that have been made, there has been only one case where we have had to institute legal proceedings for the recovery of overpayment, and in that case the money was paid into court before the proceedings. I hope that will relieve the minds of hon. Members opposite of any idea that we shall resort to large numbers of legal proceedings.

Major MILNER: I entirely accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says, and we are relieved to hear it. It is a great tribute to the unemployed that that should be the situation, and they deserve rather better treatment than the Government are giving to them in other parts of the Bill. On the understanding that the undertakings of the Solicitor-General are carried out—I am not trying to pin him down precisely to my wording—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 43, line 10, to leave out from "if" to the end of line 11.
This Amendment is really to get over a technical difficulty which we discovered after the Bill had been printed. The amount of an excess is not determined by the board's officers, but by the appeal tribunal. We think it is very desirable
that, where any question arises, that excess should be determined by the tribunal right away before there is any question of recovery or proceedings. We are advised that under the Bill as it stands it would be possible to ask the tribunal to determine the excess only after proceedings had been started. Judging by the experience of transitional payments which I have quoted, it will be a rare exception for proceedings to be started, and we are desirous of getting power to ask the tribunal to determine the excess in any case, even if proceedings are not started. It is purely a technical Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 12, after "arises," insert:
(whether in or in connection with any legal proceedings or otherwise)."—[Mr. Hudson.]

8.46 p.m.

Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 43, line 19, at the end to insert:
(3) If it is found at any time that an application for an allowance has been rejected or a reduced amount has been fixed by the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact, the applicant shall be entitled to recover from the board summarily as a civil debt either the allowance or the difference between the allowance which would otherwise have been determined and the amount he actually received, as the case may be, from the date of the original application, and if any question arises as to the amount to which the applicant is entitled, the question shall be referred in the prescribed manner to the appeal tribunal, and a certificate signed by the clerk of that tribunal, setting forth the decision of the tribunal upon the question, shall be conclusive evidence of the amount to which the applicant is entitled, and any certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved..
This Amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friends, which I am moving, is an addition to Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The Clause gives power to the Minister or to the board to recover any moneys which may have been paid in excess through non-disclosure or misrepresentation of material facts, whether done fraudulently or otherwise. We ask for the insertion of this Amendment so that if under any circumstances, by misrepresentation or the non-disclosure of material facts, fraudulently or otherwise, a person has been paid less than the
sum to which he is entitled he shall have the same right to recover the balance. I think this Amendment bears some similarity to the one on which we divided a few minutes ago. There the board was asking for certain powers to take legal action to protect itself but was not prepared to give the same rights to the applicant. If the board claims that an excess payment, which may have been claimed quite innocently, shall be repaid, surely it is not too much to ask that the applicant shall have similar facilities extended to him to recover money in cases where he has been underpaid. I have had some experience in a court of referees during the last two years and know how easy it is for mistakes to arise, not through fraud or misrepresentation, but quite innocently.
What strikes me about the Bill is that the board, with all the power which it has behind it to protect itself, a power such as an applicant cannot hope to have, has taken every step which it can to secure itself. If such protection is necessary for the board, with that enormous power, surely it is more than necessary for the applicant. Personally I think that all the way through the Bill is weighted in favour of the board and the fund, and that powers which the board is taking to itself it is not prepared to give to an applicant. We say if protection is needed for either side it should be given to the applicant, who is in the weaker position.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to suport this Amendment and to say one or two words upon it. If there is to be a regulation under which the board will receive protection we ought to have some information from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what will happen in the event of an injustice having been done to an applicant whose relief has been reduced. It appears to me that at present he has no remedy at all, or is left entirely in the hands of the board, and I am doubtful whether the board could take any retrospective action in respect of a mistake made on its part even if it wished to rectify it. If the position is that the board has no right to rectify a mistake it is clear that something must be inserted in the Bill to enable that position to be put right, and in my view this Amendment is a very reasonable one. It
provides precisely the same remedy in a case of that description as the one which the Bill affords to the board itself. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and every other Member of this Committee will agree that it would not be fair or just that a person wrongfully deprived of money should be permanently deprived of it, and I hope that if my fears, and the fears of the Mover are correct, and the position is such as we have described it, the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way clear to accept the Amendment. If the Government regard the Clause as it stands as reasonable for the protection of the board there can be no substantial grounds on which they can regard this Amendment as unreasonable.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to add my support to this Amendment and to put forward arguments to support the arguments used by my two hon. Friends. Just now we withdrew an Amendment on representations made by the Government that money ought to be repaid where it has been obtained in a manner in which it ought not to have been obtained. One could see the force of that argument, and I did not feel able to speak on that Amendment because I could see how strong the argument was on the other side. If, however, we protect the board in cases where money has been overpaid, similar protection should be given to the poor applicant. He may have been underpaid not as a result of some misrepresentation for which he was responsible, but through some mistake for which the authorities who paid him the money were responsible. If the Government think the board ought to have a fair deal and be able to recover from the applicant money to which he is not entitled, the applicant has an equal right to say, "I have not done anything wrong, but I have been deprived of a certain amount of money, and I am entitled to claim it."
Some time ago a case was brought to my notice in the neighbourhood in which I live in which a person had not been treated properly as regards transitional payments. I took the matter up, and the thing was put right from the time I did so. Ten days had elapsed prior to my taking the case up, and we could not get payment for that period. I was told that it was only from the point where I took it up that they made pay-
ment. They realised that a mistake had been made, and they would do all that they could to make it right, but they could not pay any back money. Though they admitted that a mistake had been made, the man lost 10 days' pay to which he was entitled. I was amazed to think that that was so.
One feels that in a case like that protection ought to be given, and we want words inserted that will give to applicants the money to which they are entitled, if a mistake happens. Although money may be given which may look as though it were double payment and be overmuch, yet the money is due to the man who has had to live on a short allowance the week before. No argument can shift my conviction as to the justice of this Amendment. We withdrew the last Amendment on the strength of the Government's argument that money given in mistake ought to be recoverable. On the other hand, we say that money to which a man is entitled, and which has not been paid to him for some reason, ought to be paid. I hope the Government will see our point of view, and will give way on this Amendment.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Being under the impression that the Parliamentary Secretary intends to make a concession, I want to give him a little assistance. He must know that this Amendment will not cost very much. When applicants answer questions, they do so in a way which will get the maximum amount, but should it happen that a man makes a mistake against himself, or that the board in making an award should make a mistake, we suggest that the money should be repaid in that case. It is a very small matter. The Clause now is exceptionally one-sided, because it seems to give to the board the power that they require, but none in defence of the applicant. We are asking that the applicant should be considered. Furthermore, it should be remembered that even though the amount involved is only a shilling or two shillings, or some other small amount which the applicant has not received, it is a relatively big amount to the person in question. It has been said that this may be only a matter of a shilling over one or two weeks, but that is a great amount in these cases. I hope that, if
at all possible, the Parliamentary Secretary will make a concession upon this small point.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot do less than pay a tribute to the very reasonable way in which the case for this Amendment has been put. Before I sit down I hope that hon. Members will realise how reasonable I am also. There is a real distinction between the two cases of the overpaid and the underpaid man. If the board over-pay a man, that over-payment goes on continuously until the board happen to discover it, and as the normal determination is for a fortnight or four or eight weeks, the over-payment may well run on for a matter of eight weeks before the board discover that there is anything wrong. The man will suffer in no wise as the result of the overpayment. In the case with which this Amendment deals, that of under-payment, the applicant will suffer at once, except in the case where there are other resources. There will be no failure to disclose the under-payment.
Perhaps I may make my meaning most clear if I take a concrete but imaginary case of a man assessed at 30s. The board imagines that the man has 10s. per week pension and they deduct 10s. from 30s., and so make the assessment £1. If the board do not correct their mistake by the following Tuesday at the very latest, the man's money will have run out, and, although the determination may have been for four weeks, the man will go to the officer of the board and will say, "Look here, there is no bread, no sugar and no tea in my cupboard. My money has run out." He will automatically be able to secure a reconsideration of his case. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Yes, certainly. The man will be in need and his immediate need will have to be relieved. That will automatically mean a reopening of the determination.
I can certainly give an assurance that the rules that will be produced will provide that where a man has to run into debt at the end of one week in order to enable him to live to the end of the period, the debt will be taken into account and will be considered by the board in the following week as being included in his needs, and as requiring an extra allowance in order to allow the man to
pay off the debt. Although hon. Members were perfectly justified in putting the Amendment down, my own view is that in practice they are wrong. It will be perfectly possible for the board to discover its mistake inside the first week of the determination. We shall see that the rules are drawn so that the board will be enabled to treat any underpayment in the previous week as coming within the need for consideration in the following week. With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will see that it is not unreasonable that the Government should say that the Amendment is unnecessary.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I am not sure that the remedy proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary is the proper one. It means that these people have to be driven back on to absolute destitution before they can get a mistake put right. Many of these people, when a decision given by a local tribunal is a mistaken one, put up with it for week after week and month after month. If they are able to go to somebody for advice they get mistakes put right earlier, but I have known people drag on for an enormous time under what was really an imposition put upon them by an official mistake which was never put right because it never occurred to the people concerned that they had any remedy.
I am not sure that the Amendment, as proposed, gives sufficient powers. I should like to see it made clear that if the officials of the board find out that a man is underpaid it is their duty, of their own accord, to reconsider the matter. This Amendment, which is very aptly and cleverly chosen because it reproduces the language of the original Clause, does not go far enough. It might suggest that, without actually taking civil proceedings, there will be no power for the authorities to repay the money. I would like to make perfectly clear that, as soon as the board know they have underpaid, it should be their duty to pay it back in subsequent weeks. I would much rather have this language, however, than nothing, because if the language is inserted in the Bill, it will at least show that the Government are playing the game with both sides, and are not trying to claim all the advantages for their officials.
I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary believes that he made a satisfactory answer, but I am speaking from my own knowledge of the extraordinary way in which people who have been, I will not say defrauded, but deprived of their rights go on putting up with it week after week. When they find out eventually, and go to the authorities, they are told: "I am afraid that it is too late to raise that now. If you had told us about that weeks ago, we might have done something." I think that a real point is raised here and if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot concede these words, he ought to provide some words that would make it perfectly clear that his officials are going to do the same as he expects the people on the other side to do. If the applicant has received too much, he has to pay it back, and, if the Government, through this board, have given too little, they should have to make it up. That is all that is asked, and it ought to be given.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I want to appeal to the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude towards this Amendment. I fail to see what prevents him from accepting the Amendment if the object of the Clause is to do justice to the applicant as well as to the State. I have repeatedly come across people who have been underpaid, as well as people who have been overpaid, and there is always the tendency in almost every case, where an applicant has been overpaid, to suggest fraud, when in many cases there was no fraud at all; while, on the other hand, when the applicant has been deprived of the amount to which he was entitled, he has simply been told that the fault was his, and therefore the difference could not be made good. To give an example, I have discovered cases where a father and mother in their home, in giving a return of the earnings coming into the house, have given what has been handed to them by their son or daughter, who sometimes have been concealing a portion of their earnings. When that has been discovered, the father and mother have been accused of defrauding the authorities. I have also met with cases where a boy or girl has been paid, in a normal week, 30s., but where in some weeks, having gone on short time, they have drawn only 12s. or 14s., and the people were so simple that they thought
their case had been decided for as long a period as a year, and that therefore they were not entitled to any more when the wage was 12s. or 14s. than they were when it was 30s.
I have discovered cases where the applicants have been eking out a most meagre existence because they were people of a decent type. The people for whom this Amendment pleads are of the most decent type, and are very chary of going to the authorities at all. They are timorous in approaching officials and authorities, and, once a determination is made, they sometimes think it is a permanent determination with no elasticity at all. On the other hand, the cute and cunning type of applicant, the man or woman of the world, is up to all the ebb and flow of transitional payments, and descends immediately upon the office and notifies any change that has taken place. When people have been deprived for four or five months of these sums of money, they are compelled to get behind with their rent, or to get in arrears with payments for furniture, clothing and so on, or with payments to the dairyman, grocer or butcher, and on such occasions, when I have gone to the authority, they have always said that they should only pay the increase for the coming fortnight—that, as the fault had been the applicant's, they could not remedy it. If it is desired that the State should be protected against fraud, it is equally desirable that protection should be given to the individual against any form of injustice. God knows, the methods of dealing with applicants is brutal and harsh enough, without depriving people of anything to which they are entitled.
When I am at home I repeatedly discover week by week cases of that kind—cases that I could put my finger on at this moment—where people in a home where £3 10s. a week has been coming in from five or six individuals have been deprived of as much as 22s. 6d. a week for 5½ months owing to their timidity or ignorance. Therefore, I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to see the justice of this Amendment and concede it. Unless something in the nature of a reasonable concession can be granted for the protection of people in circumstances such as these, discussion in the House of Commons is a farce, and ought not to take place at all. If there is simply a blank refusal on every occasion, parlia-
mentary democracy is a farce, and not worth taking part in. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give that protection in this Clause, on the ground that it is very reasonable.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think that perhaps the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) does not fully appreciate the powers and duties of the board under Part II, and the powers and duties of the appeal tribunals. He suggested the case of a man who for a long period of weeks—

Mr. McGOVERN: Months.

Mr. HUDSON: Months, if you like—had failed to disclose material figures which, if they had been disclosed, would have resulted in his being given an increased amount per week; and the hon. Member said that, as the result of such people getting less for continuing periods of weeks or months than they would have got if the whole of their needs had been known, they had accumulated large debts for rent and so on. It is quite clear that, under the Bill as it stands and under the powers of the tribunals, it would be the duty of a tribunal and the duty of the board's officers to regard that accumulated debt hanging over a man's head as a current need, and, where the man could show good cause, it would be the duty of the officer and of the tribunal to make a grant for the payment of the debt, either in a lump sum or by means of an increased determination for the following four weeks. It is, therefore, quite clear that that matter is already provided for.
In discussing the last Amendment but one, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General promised that, in order to meet some of the apprehensions, he would see that there was inserted on the form which a man had to fill up a warning that, if by any chance he did not know the answer to a particular question, he should either put down the reply that he was not certain or leave the space blank. If the Committee, and especially hon. Members opposite, think it would in any way meet the case which has been put by the hon. Member for Shettleston, that there are many people who do not realise that if circumstances change a [...] is entitled to another determination,
it might possibly answer their purpose if we inserted in the form a warning or a word of advice to the effect that, as soon as his personal circumstances changed, he ought to let the officer know, so that the desirability of a new determination might be looked into.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: This is not a question merely of change. We are asking that, where it is found by the board that they have made a mistake, they should have power to correct that mistake retrospectively from the time at which they made the award. Honestly, I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment. If he refuses to do so, we shall be bound to press it.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: It is not a question of refusing it. I made the last suggestion in answer to a specific difficulty raised by the hon. Member that a man had been given a determination in the light of all the circumstances of the case, that the circumstances had changed, and that the man had not reported the change. I was asked if I would meet that particular case, and I was trying to explain that there are full powers in the Act now.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. PALING: If "being reasonable" does not mean getting any more than we have got from the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, we shall have to change our tactics. I do not think he has answered the case. We have had two points: first that the applicant is better able to know that he is underpaid than the board that he is overpaid. I disagree. I think the evidence is to the contrary. The people who are making the determination make so many that they will know almost to a penny, and at a glance, what ought to be paid in every case that comes before them, and, if any single case varies in any single week, I guarantee that before the day is out they will find it out. The contrary is true of the applicant. He does not know what is the usual amount paid to the thousands of people in the neighbourhood. He merely knows what is paid to him, and he will not have any means of knowing what is the usual amount paid to other people, and until he gets to know he will not know that he has the right to appeal
for more. The board has all the facilities on its side in that direction.
Let me put another case. The hon. Gentleman says if a man is underpaid it is only for seven days. He buys so much bread, tea and bacon for the week. If he is underpaid, it only lasts for six days and there will be none on the seventh and, therefore, he will know that he is underpaid and will go back and say there has been a mistake. Does he really think that will happen? When the determination is made the man will think he has got all he can get and he will spread the money over the seven days and will go with a little less bacon, bread and tea on the six days in order to spread it over the seven. What is the converse? If he is paid 5s. too much he is not only reduced, when it is discovered, by that 5s., but by another 5s., because he has to refund it. If his determination was 30s. and he was paid 35s. for four weeks, he would owe £1, and it is safe to assume that for the next four weeks he would be paid 25s. instead of 30s.

Mr. HUDSON: Only if he has other resources.

Mr. PALING: If there is anything in the hon. Gentleman's argument, the man may find himself on the sixth and seventh day without tea, bread or anything else.

Mr. HUDSON: No, because if he finds himself without any bread or tea on the sixth day it would be an argument to come up for the next determination to have the 5s. restored.

Mr. PALING: That may be so, but we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's argument as to what would happen. He has not put up any evidence against the Amendment. Is it asking too much that the applicant himself, who has none of the facilities for protecting himself that the board has, should be placed in a worse position than the board, which has all the facilities to protect itself in any circumstances? I hope the hon. Gentleman will alter his mind and accept the Amendment.

Mr. HUDSON: I cannot accept the Amendment, but I will certainly see whether it is possible to devise words which will make it clear that the board and the tribunal are to have power to make a repayment where, for a short period, there has been an obvious mistake
which can be corrected in the following week. What I cannot do is to suggest that, where there has been under-payment for four or five months, he can reclaim a lump sum. I will see whether I can put in words to make sure that the ordinary mistake which we all have in mind shall be corrected as soon as it is discovered.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Gentleman is meeting us on the case where there has been a simple mistake found out before too much time has elapsed.

Mr. McGOVERN: No, he is not.

Mr. TINKER: I understood that where there had been a mistake not covering too long a period—a week or two—the hon. Gentleman was prepared to give powers to the board to pay the money back, and I am satisfied with that.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I am not at all sure that the concession that the hon. Gentleman proposes to consider will cover the case that we put forward. Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that, where a mistake has been made, the right of recovery shall exist for the person against whom this has acted? I appreciate the point of view that he has put that, when a man, by virtue of a mistake, has been compelled to incur debt, that would naturally be taken into consideration at a later stage, but he has not dealt with the point of a person who by mistake or otherwise has been prepared to accept for his subsistence an amount which is really less than is necessary for him to keep body and soul together in a reasonable manner. If the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the fact that a mistake can be made and that it may continue for a matter of weeks, or possibly months, it stands to reason that not only should the board be in a position to repay but that the applicants themselves should be entitled to recover the amount if the board does not repay it. If the intention is to introduce an Amendment to the effect that the board shall not only be entitled to be paid but shall also be compelled to repay, I assume that that will be acceptable to anyone who is in favour of the Amendment, but, if it only means that it will be entirely in the discretion of the board if it goes on for four or five months, in my view that will not be satisfactory to those who moved the
Amendment. I am not clear about the position.

Mr. PALING: I am not sure that we are going to get all that we want. I hope the hon. Gentleman will find words which will give us, if not all, the greater part of what we want. I am content to wait for that.

Mr. HUDSON: We both want to see justice done. I will try to find a form of words which will make it clear that the board has full power to do justice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, in page 43, line 25, at the end, to insert:
and any defendant in such proceedings may similarly be represented by any person duly nominated by him notwithstanding that such person is not of counsel or a solicitor.
This Amendment would follow at the end of the Sub-section, which is very short:
(3) Proceedings under this section before a court of summary jurisdiction may be instituted, prosecuted or conducted on behalf of the board by any officer authorised in that behalf by a special or general direction of the board, notwithstanding that he is not of counsel or a solicitor.
Our aim is to give the man the same right of representation as is given to the board. We move this Amendment from a rather long experience. We find that there are a great many men who cannot state a case. If they are left to themselves, they are at a loss to state their case, with the result that most of the trade unions have had to appoint an official to go with the man to the court of referees to state his case. They have even had to go farther, and appoint an official to go with him to the umpire. Just after the commissioners' courts were established to decide on applications for transitional payment, the Minister of Labour helped us to obtain the right to send a trade union official along with the man when he went before the commissioners. It is impossible for a man who is in receipt of relief from the board to go to court and pay a solicitor, and, if the trade union had to pay a solicitor every time a man went before the court, they might have to spend a great deal of money. We ask
that the man shall be given the same right as the board to be represented in court by someone who is neither of counsel nor a solicitor.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I have found in Durham exactly the same thing that he has found. Many people find it very difficult indeed to put their case, and I have in the past often been able to help them, or my friend has been able to help them, to state a case which has been sound and has, owing to our help, been accepted by the court hearing the appeal. There is no reason, to my mind, why a man who is appealing should not be represented before the court in exactly the same way as the officers of the board. Particularly in the cases where there are points of difficulty not understood by the applicant, it is just as well that somebody who does understand them shall be present to put them before the court. In Durham, particularly, that has been done before the commissioners, and in many cases the application has been granted.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I should like to support the Amendment, to which my name also is down. We shall probably be running contrary to the lawyers, so we had better meet their arguments before they begin to put them. They are the men who stand to benefit by the Amendment. Lawyers as a rule do not like to work for nothing, and we are attempting to relieve them of that necessity. In a sense we are doing them a good turn by trying to get them to see our point of view, because, if we are not able to carry this Amendment, I can see many lawyers whom I know being called upon to defend the poor applicant under the Poor Persons' Procedure.
The Government have seen fit, first of all, to say that an officer of the board is capable of prosecuting or taking part in proceedings before a court of summary jurisdiction. They say that, though he may not be of counsel or a solicitor, he may go and institute proceedings. If this be good enough for the Government, then it ought equally to be open to the man himself to be represented by someone other than a lawyer. In our own ranks there are men who are capable, in
these matters, of putting the point of view of the working man much better than lawyers. We have men who are in intimate contact with the workmen; who know their work and conditions more closely than any lawyers can. The same applies to cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts where a man is injured; we often instruct the lawyer on points of law and give him the idea of how to proceed. We have not been able to go into court to put our case, but the lawyer has depended upon us to put the position more clearly than he understood it. On matters concerning the man's conditions, I claim that the ordinary layman can leave the lawyer far behind. The applicant would not therefore be suffering an injustice if he were represented by his friend or by a trade union official in a court of summary jurisdiction. I am asking the Government, if they think it wise to break through the necessity for having lawyers to represent the board, to admit that it is equally wise and good to allow the man to have the same privilege. That is why we press this Amendment, hoping that the Minister will be able to accept it.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: Perhaps the last hon. Member will be satisfied—and I share with him and every other Member of the Committee the desire to give the applicant fair treatment—if the Government leave out Sub-section (3), so that both sides shall have an equal advantage.

9.33 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I apologise to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment if I was not here when he actually moved it, but I have been told the substance of what he said. This Amendment is, of course, drawn in very wide terms. I will, first of all, say a word on the Section to which it would add a further sentence. The Section entitles officers of the board to appear in certain cases before a court of summary jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin) referred to the court of referees. As the Committee will appreciate, there is a distinction, and one which can properly be drawn, between proceedings before the court of referees and proceedings before a court of law. This House has in cer-
tainly three previous Acts entitled official persons to appear before courts of summary jurisdiction although they were not barristers or solicitors.
The Trade Boards Act, 1909, and the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, contain similar provisions to that which is proposed in Sub-section (3) of the Clause which we are discussing. Parliament in making those exemptions did something which was wise. The officials of the respective Ministries are obviously qualified by their official duties to speak as to the legal effect of the particular provisions of the Act which they are administering from day to day. They are persons whom this House can trust to instruct a court of summary jurisdiction by the fact of their official duties, and the experience they get in that capacity. Apart, however, from exceptions of that kind, the general position in this country—and here I can easily be accused of taking an orthodox trade union attitude—is that, apart from the litigant, the only persons who have right of audience as representatives are solicitors or counsel.
That is a general principle, and, although there may be differences of opinion about it, there are certain obvious advantages in the interests both of litigants or persons charged. Solicitors are officers of the Court, and barristers are subject to disciplinary action by their Inns, and there is a certain control exercised in that way over those who represent either litigants or persons charged. There is control, for instance, exercised over the bargain that a qualified representative, solicitor or barrister, can make with his client. Unlike some countries, we in this country have the salutary rule in force, that the representative shall not have a direct financial interest in the result of the proceedings. It is a principle which, I think, we all regard as very important. If you make an inroad before the Courts upon that principle, you are doing something which raises a very serious and a very wide issue.

Mr. BATEY: Are you not making an inroad?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment makes very serious inroads because the Amendment entitles anyone, with or without qualifications, to make representations.

Mr. BATEY: I said that you were beginning to make the inroads.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was saying that it was not a new point. There is, I agree, an exception from the general principle. Parliament made an innovation in 1901, which was followed in 1909, and again in 1924, with regard to a special and designated class of persons, namely, officials of the Ministry who during their daily duties are dealing with the administration of the Act concerned. Parliament wisely decided, and it is a good precedent to follow in the present Bill, that those persons are the proper persons to be authorised to appear in a court of summary jurisdiction. None of the evils which might result from departing from our general rules that those who appear must be either solicitors or counsel apply to that class of person in the case of the previous Acts which I have mentioned, and in this Bill. The Amendment would, without any restriction on anybody, however undesirable, give persons the right to appear before a court, however little qualified they were to instruct the court. They might easily get hold of in this way, for no good reason, a person charged. In fact it would be the last thing which would be desirable in many cases in the interests of the person. It is a principle on the whole which, I suggest, cannot be embodied in this Bill.
On the whole, the disadvantages and drawbacks of lawyers being what they may be, there are advantages that litigants or charged persons know that those who are entitled to represent them will be subjected to discipline and control. On this matter, that to which I referred in an earlier Amendment is germane, namely, power of getting legal assistance under the Poor Persons' Rules. The last Act which dealt with that matter was one passed in 1930 when hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting on these benches, and which made provision for assistance to be granted by magistrates in cases where serious questions arise, and which the magistrates think proper for that assistance to be given. On this Amendment I will repeat what I have already said, that if those provisions are not adequate, and if they can be improved, I think that the right course is not the one proposed by the Amendment. Let us improve the
Poor Persons' Procedure so that they can get what, I am sure, all Members of the Committee would expect, and what the legal profession are anxious to give, namely, real and proper assistance for those not able to afford to pay the ordinary charges.

Mr. MARTIN: Is there any machinery whereby it is pointed out to the applicant that he can apply for assistance? The ignorance which very often causes the injustice, probably may also be the cause of not knowing where or how to apply for poor persons' assistance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that the hon. Member has raised a point of great importance, and possibly of some practical difficulty. I do what I can, and I am sure we all do what we can, to get people outside the House to try to make poor persons realise the opportunities which they have of getting advice and assistance. That can be done to some extent under the present position voluntarily, and if, in fact, the existing legislative machinery is inadequate, the proper course would be to alter it so as to make it adequate. I suggest to the Committee that the wise course is not that which is suggested by the Amendment, which, as I have already said more than once, would throw it open to anyone uncontrolled to appear as a representative, and the possible evils of that course lead me to say that I am unable to accept the Amendment Anxious as the Government are and as every Member of the Committee must be that in these cases the poor person should be properly represented before the court and should have as good an opportunity as anybody else to have his case put by those who are qualified to put it, we feel that the Amendment cannot be accepted and that this is not the right approach to the problem which the promoters of the Measure have in mind.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I agree that the Solicitor-General has explained the position very clearly, and that if the Amendment were carried it would lead to a sensation in legal circles. Although the Solicitor-General has pointed out the disadvantages of the Amendment, he must agree with the main contention of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that this Clause will make it possible for one more layman to practise
in court. The only reason why I can see that that has been put in the Bill is on the ground of cost or because the officer himself is more conversant with the details of the case that would have to be discussed before a court of summary jurisdiction. I appreciate that the lawyers do exceptionally good work in the courts, but I think the Solicitor-General will agree with me that there are cases which come before the courts where the solicitor or barrister gets confused because of their lack of knowledge of the industry with which the case is concerned. I have been in court many times as a witness in compensation cases and I have heard able barristers arguing compensation cases on the points of law and doing it very well, but not when they have been trying to put before the learned judge the situation underground where the accident happened. I have heard them talking about putting the packing on top of the ripping, and saying that in the full belief that they were describing the position properly.
The main point of the hon. Member for Spennymoor was not merely to try and get some blackleg representatives in court but to bring before the Committee the position that is likely to arise in thousands of cases when Part II comes into operation. The men who will be affected by this Clause have been out of work for a long time. The mere fact that they have come under Part II means that they have been out of work for a long time. They are unused to the ways of courts of summary jurisdiction, they are not practised in law and they are almost afraid, because of their poverty, of facing anyone when law is suggested. There may be complaints against a man and the case for the prosecution may be put into the hands of a skilled officer or, if the board think fit, into the hands of a skilled lawyer, who will go into court and tell the magistrates that the man has done something or omitted to do something that he ought to have done. The underlying idea of the Amendment is that the man shall have some right to nominate someone to represent him who is not of necessity a lawyer.
I could quote several precedents in Acts of Parliament bearing on this point. In the Coal Mines (Minimum Wages) Act, 1912, an applicant for a minimum wage has the right by law to nominate someone to represent him before the em-
ployer. It may be said there is considerable difference between a colliery office and a court of law. All that we desire is that when any man is taken to court he shall have someone who can put his case. These men are entitled to have someone to speak for them. In the ordinary run of things you may have a type of man who has never been inside a court before and the very moment that he is compelled to go into court, either as a witness or as a defendant his inferiority complex comes out on top. There are men not of the working class who fear cross-examination by a skilled lawyer. Let the Committee remember that the unemployed men affected will have been out of work and in poverty for a long time, they are ill-nourished and they know very little about law. What we want is a guarantee that when they are taken to court there will be someone to speak on their behalf. The Solicitor-General mentioned the Poor Persons' Defence Act. I realise that the fact of a layman going to court with a man may win the case for him and that, on the other hand, it may lose the case for him. What we want to ensure is that the men shall know when they are going to be taken into court, to be faced with an officer of the board who knows all the details, all the regulations and the law on the subject, or faced by a solicitor, if the board think ft, that they can have someone to represent them and to put his case. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, we expect that, through the Department, they will make the men aware of the possibilities of getting someone to speak on their behalf if they are taken to court.

9.52 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Can the Solicitor-General help me? We are all anxious that the legislation of this country should not become less liberal on this subject than it has been in the past. The Solicitor-General mentioned several Acts under which official bodies are entitled to appear by their officers, but he did not mention the Education Act of 1921. In this respect I think the Education Act of 1921 embodies a very old provision which dates back to 1902, if not to 1870. Under that Act, Section 145,
a local education authority may appear in all legal proceedings by their clerk, or by some member of the authority authorised by resolution of the authority.
Then there follows this remarkable Section:
Any person may appear in any proceeding under Part IV or Part V of this Act
which includes actions in regard to school attendance
by any member of his family or any other person authorised by him in that behalf.
If a parent summoned by a school attendance officer may appear by any person authorised by him in that behalf, and if that is an old provision of the law, are we not going back and becoming retrograde by refusing such an opportunity for representation under this Bill? I know that I have put a point unfamiliar to the Solicitor-General and I do not expect him to give me a detailed and final reply now, but perhaps he will look into the point between now and the Report stage and see whether we cannot bring this Bill into line with other legislation.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: In supporting the Amendment I must remind the Solicitor-General that this is not an innovation in the law. In the case of a coroner's court the relatives of a man who may have been killed in a mining accident can nominate someone to represent them at the inquiry, and in 95 per cent. of the cases they are not represented by a lawyer. That does not cast any reflection on lawyers, nor do I want to do anything of the kind. They have certain virtues and many vices, but there are other things which make it impossible for the ordinary working man to employ a skilled lawyer. There is the ground of expense. The Amendment is so fair that I cannot understand what objection there can be to it. The Clause says that the board may get someone to appear for them in any prosecution although he may not be counsel or a solicitor. The Amendment only asks that the same right shall be given the defendant. You have two parties going to court, one to prosecute and the other to defend. The prosecuting party has the right to choose a legal gentleman or an ordinary officer of the board to prosecute, and it cannot be unfair to give the defendant the same right. The Clause as it stands favours the official side. Surely, there is nothing wrong in asking the Committee to say that both contending parties shall have an equal right in
this respect? I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: We do not want to prolong the Debate, and the suggestion has already been made that the Government might reconsider this matter between now and Report stage and, if they are not satisfied with the actual terms of the Amendment, suggest some alternative form. This point has been reinforced by the statement made by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and it seems to me that the Government should be able to give the guarantee for which we are asking. We are not concerned about the words of the Amendment, we are concerned about the principle, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will reconsider the matter.

9.58 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord the right hoe. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has pointed out a provision in a previous Act of Parliament which certainly was not present to my mind, where a general authority is given authorising representation before the court. That is an important point in the argument. I cannot give an undertaking any higher than this, that we will certainly look into the matter and particularly into the working of the provision in the Education Act. There are, I think, obvious possible evils in allowing an unlimited right, evils to the man himself, and our present feeling is that these evils outweigh the advantages. However, we will consider the various points which have been made in the Debate and, as long as it is quite clear that the undertaking does not go any farther than I have expressed, we will certainly reconsider the matter in the light of what hon. Members have said.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Solicitor-General to consider this point in consultation with the Solicitor-General for Scotland, because the Scottish practice is somewhat different. For some time it has been the practice in Scotland not to allow unlicensed people to appear, but the sheriff has the right if he thinks fit to grant a right of appearance, and it is frequently done, to someone of standing in the locality. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: indicated assent.

Mr. BATEY: In view of the statement made by the Solicitor-General I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 43, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the proposed defendant has been given notice of the charge within seven days of the evidence coming to the knowledge of the board.
We think that if a man is to be charged he has a right to have a reasonable notice of the charge and also when the case is going to be heard. The suggestion in the Amendment is one which I think the Government will see is very necessary and I hope they will accept it.

10.3 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment as there are certain undesirable results which may follow from it, which I hope the hon. Member will appreciate. The object of this Sub-section is to give an extended time for proceedings to be taken. There is a maximum of 12 months after the commission of the offence or three months from the date on which evidence, in the opinion of the judge sufficient to justify a prosecution, came within the knowledge of the board. This Amendment will compel the board as soon as it has got evidence to give notice within seven days. It looks quite simple but, obviously, difficult questions may arise as to when the evidence was sufficiently completed to justify the board in giving notice. If the Amendment was accepted there might be cases where the board will say that they had a completed case and must give notice to the man, otherwise the seven days will run out.
It is much better to have the rather wider period of three months, which will make it not so necessary to decide whether the evidence was completed on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and really might obviate the bringing of a case where the board, in order to comply with the Amendment, gave notice of the charge because they wanted to safeguard themselves and subsequently found that it was not a proper case with which to proceed. In such an event the man would be subject to a certain amount of pain and would be very indignant, and a very
undesirable state of affairs would arise. So far as protecting the man is concerned, I agree that he must have reasonable notice of any charge. If the case comes on for hearing and there is any suggestion that the man has not had time to prepare his evidence, he asks and is granted an adjournment. The courts are always very ready to see that no man is prejudiced by having a case brought on against him too soon, and that is particularly so where there is a poor man on the one side and a Government Department on the other.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.8 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 43, line 43, to leave out "three years," and to insert "one year."
The committee is very fortunate in having the learned Solicitor-General here to assist in our proceedings. He has been most helpful and reasonable, and sympathetic for the most part. I much hope that he may see the reasonableness of this Amendment. The position under Sub-section (5) of the Clause is that proceedings for summary recovery of sums drawn in excess of those properly due may be brought at any time within three years from the time when the matter complained of arose. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit that time to one year. I submit that it is not desirable to hold over a matter of this sort for so long a period as three years. I appreciate that the matter complained of may not have come to the notice of the authorities perhaps in much less than a year, but surely it should not be possible, in the case of an unemployed man who, perhaps innocently, makes a non-disclosure or a misrepresentation, to bring that matter against him within so long a period as three years.
We were given to understand earlier to-day by the Parliamentary Secretary that under a somewhat similar provision in existing legislation only one case had been brought against a man who had drawn sums in excess of the amount that he should have drawn. That being so, the matter cannot be of very serious moment to the Ministry or to the Public Assistance Board. Under the penal Clause of the Bill prosecutions for an offence have to be taken within 12 months from the
commission of the offence. A similar provision should apply in the case of a summary recovery. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will again show his reasonableness by accepting this Amendment.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the Amendment. The Clause deals with the recovery of money paid under a misapprehension, through a mistake, or obtained fraudulently. If a man gets hold of money to which he is not entitled, it has to be recovered within three years' time. On an earlier Amendment we dealt with the case of a man who sought to get back money that ought to have been paid to him but which he had not been paid owing to some misunderstanding. We got from the Parliamentary Secretary the statement that for a short period, although a mistake had been made, the money would be retained. The period mentioned was a week or two. If that contention was right for the Government in the case of a mistake made by Government officials, surely we have a right to ask, on behalf of a man, that such a long period as three years should not exist in his case. According to figures given to us earlier, very few cases to recover these moneys have been taken into court. I cannot imagine many cases extending over 12 months. Anything beyond the 12 months ought to be passed by.

10.14 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Everyone feels that, save in exceptional cases, it is desirable that these matters should be dealt with promptly or not at all. This period of three years appears also in Clause 24 (1) of the Bill, and it also appears in the Widows' and Orphans' (Contributory Pensions) Act. That is its origin and it is to some extent desirable that these things should be uniform. The Mover, by the kind words which he used about myself, makes it very difficult for me to oppose the Amendment which he moved with such reasonableness and a good deal of substance, and with the object of which we must all have some sympathy. But in a certain sense this Amendment is rather academic. This Sub-section only refers to proceedings for summary recovery. The hon. Member, I have no doubt, realises, however, that that particular method of recovery is not the
only method to which the board could resort if they thought fit. They could recover the money as a civil debt by ordinary civil proceedings. One believes that in ordinary cases the board would not contemplate action after a year, but there might be a special case of aggravated fraud which they thought should be brought to the public notice and receive public condemnation although the offence had been committed more than a year before.
If this Amendment were passed forbidding them to take summary proceedings after a year and if after a year a case arose in which—having regard to the considerations which one hopes and believes will animate them—they still felt they should exact the penalty of the recovery of the money, they could well do so by the other method which I have indicated. That other method would obviously be more expensive and would involve the defendant in the ordinary costs of civil proceedings which would be greater than the cost of the summary procedure provided for in the Bill. The Amendment would still leave the board with the right to proceed by ordinary civil process within six years, which is the ordinary period. It would not, therefore, effect the object which the Mover intends, namely to prevent the possibility of a man being harassed by proceedings after one year. One hopes that only in exceptional cases would the board think proper to take proceedings after a year but if they did think proper to do so, even with this Amendment they would still, as I have pointed out, have a power which would be exerciseable at greater expense to the defendant than that involved in the summary procedure. I suggest for that reason that the Mover might consider withdrawing this Amendment. I do not go into the general question of whether the period in the Statute of Limitations dealing with this and other matters is too long or not, but as far as this particular Amendment is concerned, it would not affect the position in the way hon. Members desire.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. PALING: This discussion seems to provide the answer to the Government's case on a previous Amendment. We tried to ascertain, among other things, how far debts contracted in the matter of
excess payments were to date back but we did not get an answer to our point. It now appears that they may date back as far as three years. I protest against the tendency which is shown throughout this Clause, for the Government to weight the scales in favour of the board and against the applicant. If a debt is incurred by way of excess payments it can be claimed on behalf of the Government after three years but if an applicant has been underpaid, he, apparently, is not to have a corresponding right. The Government are not prepared to give to the applicant the right which they ask for the board. We protest vigorously against the Government doing this kind of thing for themselves and not giving the same right to the person who needs it most. Is there any sound reason why, if a debt of this kind has been contracted, it should hang over for as long a time as three years? Is not a year good enough? Moreover, is it not a fact that the kind of people who will contract these debts are the very people who, by virtue of the fact that they are receiving assistance, will have no resources whatever to pay back anything?

10.21 p.m.

Major MILNER: There is a good deal of justification for the position that my hon. Friend takes up in his point as to the difference in the treatment meted out by the Government to the unemployed man on the one hand and the employer on the other. I appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said, though I had not previously appreciated it, that in addition to the remedy provided under this Bill, there would be the ordinary remedy through the county court or elsewhere. I had assumed, no doubt erroneously, that this would be the only civil remedy.
Will the learned Solicitor-General or the Government be good enough to consider what I regard as an even more important matter than this, though I think it arises in this connection, namely, whether they would insert a similar provision to that in Sub-section (4), immediately preceding, whereby proceedings would be taken within three months from the date of information coming to the knowledge of the Unemployment Assistance Board? Obviously it ought not to be possible for the Board, so to speak,
to sit on information for a period of three years, as they might conceivably do under the Bill as at present drawn, and then, for other reasons altogether, take proceedings against an applicant. If the Solicitor-General would consider between now and the Report stage inserting a provision whereby proceedings would be taken within three months of information coming to the knowledge of the Board, that would possibly be something in the nature of a safeguard at any rate, and if he would agree to that, I would, with the permission of my hon. Friend, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will certainly undertake to consider what for the moment I cannot see any objection to, namely, that there should be this limitation of three months from the time the board get their information. It is already for certain purposes in the Bill, and I appreciate the case put forward. I cannot go further than promise to consider the point, and we will do what we can in the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 (Provisions as to allowances paid to persons entitled to old age pensions) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 49.—(Miscellaneous.)

10.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 44, line 32, after "persons," to insert:
to whom transitional payments have been made and whose cases are recorded on a special case-paper.
There is no doubt that the documents referred to in this Clause are the case-papers kept by the public assistance authorities, and that it is the intention of the board to have all the papers relating to able-bodied persons who are taken over by them under the provisions of the Bill. It seems a reasonable provision. There are two points to be considered. In the first place, these case-papers may relate not only to the men themselves but also to their families. In the second place, the transfer of able-bodied men to the Unemployment Assistance Board will not necessarily involve the future relief of their families by the
board. As the Clause now stands it may cause a good deal of difficulty to public assistance authorities. The Minister will appreciate the difficulty that will be caused by this, and he may say that he will prefer to deal with it by departmental regulations to be issued in the future, but we cannot tell what those departmental regulations will be, and therefore we think that these words should be added to the Bill.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member realises that the board will be taking over not merely persons hitherto in receipt of transitional payment but a considerable number of able-bodied persons hitherto in receipt of public assistance relief. He will realise the magnitude of the problem when he remembers that the scope of Part II of the Bill is approximately 17,000,000 persons as compared with 12,500,000 under Part I. There is therefore a contingent liability of nearly another 5,000,000 persons. If the Amendment were accepted, the board would have to exercise its powers under Sub-section (1) of Clause 49 to copy out all the existing case papers of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief. I think it is clear that that would involve the board in very great unnecessary expense. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that some of the families of the recipients would remain on the Poor Law, but in so far as they are dependents of the recipients they will be the care of the board and the board will take over responsibility, not merely for the men themselves, but for their dependents.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: They may come back under Clause 40.

Mr. HUDS0N: If they come back to the public assistance committee under Clause 40 the board will undoubtedly give the case papers back to the committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may perhaps reply that the recipient who has hitherto been in receipt of Poor Law relief will in future be very likely to receive sick relief from the public assistance committee rather than able-bodied relief from the Assistance Board. My answer is that in that particular case, where it was probable that it would be more the medical needs of the man that were at issue than his needs under Part
II, obviously the board would leave the case papers with the public assistance committee, and merely copy sufficient of the information thereon for the board's need. It will really be a matter of give and take between the board and the Committee, but we think that it is very undesirable to lay down these rigid restrictions in the Statute. I hope that with that explanation my hon. and gallant Friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 45, line 9, to leave out from "Health," to "be," in line 11.
Sub-section (5) of the Clause lays it down that when a marriage, death or birth certificate is required for the purposes of this Bill it can be obtained on certain terms. A birth certificate is to be obtainable for 6d. and a marriage or death certificate for 1s. I appreciate that these charges are less than the usual fees, but in this Amendment we are asking that these certificates shall be free to men who require them for the purposes of this Bill. One almost hesitates to argue this Amendment, because I have often heard the Parliamentary Secretary speak so glowingly of how persons are going to be treated under Part II, but I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say that it is not always possible for a man who has been out of work for six, nine or 12 months to find even 6d. or 1s. when he needs it. These will be men who have seen more dinner times than dinners, and whilst 6d. or 1s. is not much to those who are fairly well off a shilling is a difficult sum to get hold of in working-class life. It is not so easy to borrow a shilling as it used to be in times of prosperity. On that point I can speak with some experience.
We think the certificates ought to be free. I cannot understand what argument the Parliament Secretary can advance against the Amendment. He certainly cannot oppose it on the ground of cost, because this will not cost a great deal; and, if it should be resisted on the ground that it means a loss of fees
to registrars or the superintendent registrar, that is a matter which could easily be adjusted. We have been told several times by the hon. Gentlemen opposite that our Amendments and our attitude were so reasonable that they might do something to meet us, and now I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might accept this very modest Amendment. It will not cost very much money, and it may be doing a real service to some person who needs a certificate and has not sixpence or a shilling to spare.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment, but, as on a previous occasion, I think that when I have explained the situation the hon. Member will agree that we are quite reasonable in refusing it. This particular concession as to the cost of certificates would really apply only to the class of persons mentioned in Clause 42, persons who have resources and who go to a training centre run by the board and who, owing to the fact that they are not in need, will not get an allowance from the board. In the case of the persons contemplated by the hon. Member, that is, those who apply to the board for an allowance, obviously they will be in need, and therefore will not be able to pay even this limited sum for a certificate. In those cases, a machinery like the present machinery of the Ministry will come into force and a certificate will be obtained free of cost to them. If this Amendment were passed, it would have the effect of seriously diminishing the income of the registrar: it will depend upon the amount of the fees what that income is. The procedure is that where a birth certificate or a marriage certificate is required by the Ministry, we pay the cost, and the cost appears under the heading of "Allied Services." Hon. Members will realise that this is only required for a very narrow class of persons, and that in fact there will be no charge.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. PALING: It appears to be very definite that in all cases where one of these certificates is required 6d. or 1s. would be paid, according to the nature of the case. If that is the intention of the Government, and as there are cases
where resources do not allow people to pay that small amount, would it not be better to put something into the paragraph to make that absolutely clear, because I am afraid that the words as they are indicate that everybody will have to pay.

Mr. HUDSON: I think the meaning is clear, but I will certainly look into the matter again. If a person appears before the board and has to go to the expense of obtaining a certificate, that will increase his need pro tanto, and the board will have to take that into account as one of the needs to be met. I will certainly look into the point raised by hon. Members.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: We appreciate the reply of the hon. Gentleman, and in view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I understand that my hon. Friends will withdraw their Amendment. We shall take that course in order to avoid a Division and to give an opportunity for the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. T. SMITH: After hearing the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and on the understanding that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I move this Motion by virtue of the fact that this afternoon I was granted leave to do so, and I want at the outset to call attention to the ground on which leave was given, namely:
The refusal to-day of the Prime Minister to grant any facilities whatever for the unemployed hunger marchers to voice their
grievance, either to himself, the Cabinet, or the House.
Those are the terms on which we secured leave to move the Adjournment to-night. In moving the Motion, I want to put before the House one or two considerations why I think the House of Commons ought to agree with us in it. I hope I shall not be out of order or far-fetched if I compare this hunger march with previous marches that have taken place. I remember that, when the last one took place, various people were loud in their advice to the marchers that, when they came to London, they ought to conduct themselves in a manly, peaceful and constitutional fashion. I remember that on that occasion they were told by Members from all parts that, if they would adopt a quiet, constitutional and ordinary civil way of demonstrating their rights, they would neither find the House of Commons, the Cabinet nor the Government, either individually or collectively, unresponsive.
On this occasion the hunger marchers have come here in an orderly way, quietly and decently; they have come here without any display of force, and without aggravating any person or any section of the community. In an honest, simple way they have marched these miles. The men and the women are of the ordinary types of working-class population. Now they have come, and they have made three requests. One is that this House should hear them at the Bar; the second is that the Cabinet, and the third that the Prime Minister, should see them. Those are constitutional, quiet, decent requests.
I want, if I can, to meet some of the objections that I have heard voiced. First of all, let me say that the Prime Minister thought fit to send a letter recently, and he quoted it to-day, making certain statements as to why he could not meet those marchers. One of the reasons that I almost feel he descends to is that he says that those marchers are the victims of Communist agitators. That may well be the case. But I remember an election that he fought, I remember the famous "Red Letter" election, when on every Tory platform throughout the country he was pictured as being a Communist dupe, when from every platform and from every place he was told that he was doing Moscow's work. I have yet to learn that
it is in conformity with the dignity of the Prime Minister not to reason a case but to descend to personal abuse. It does not matter whether they are Communist, Labour, Liberal or Tory dupes, the case is to be met not by abuse but by reason. These are ordinary, decent men. Communists are there and Labour people are there, but the great overwhelming majority belong to the ordinary section of the community who are dissatisfied with and indignant at the shocking conditions. They come here to plead their poverty and to plead for decency in their social treatment. Is there anyone who will say they have not conducted themselves with credit to all concerned. The Prime Minister meets them with a sneer and a scoff and almost with abuse. We can remember when in 1918 he could not get a platform in the country and he was called pro-German by the same people who are now backing him. He was abused with every filthy phrase that could be used in the hope of discrediting him, and he uses the Communist phrase with no relation to Communism in order to discredit those decent men the sooner. I often think there is little to be gained by ordinary, decent, civil standards of life. This straightforward, open method is met by the same, and even a more brutal rebuff than if they had been using any kind of dirty or mean method to arrive here.
There are three requests. One is that there should come to the Bar of the House of Commons three ordinary men who have had long periods of unemployment, three ordinary human beings with little to commend them in the way of language, dress or style should come here and state their case in their own way. There are some Members who agree with us on some points but think this is carrying it too far. I would agree that a request for every single deputation to be heard at the Bar would soon reduce this House to almost a farce, but this House of Commons has certain rights. They may not have been used for many years, but nevertheless they are rights, and this House of Commons has the right to grant them. It is for this House to say when the circumstances arise in which this right should be re-invoked. What greater issue is there in this country than that of the flesh, blood and human material of the unemployed? The House is now considering a Bill that affects every one
of these men in the most intimate detail of their lives; what fitter circumstance could there be than the passing of this Measure which affects the poverty of millions of our fellow-subjects? The right is jealously guarded, so that it shall not be given too easily, but it is meant to be used on occasion, and never, in my view, has a better case for its use arisen than that of the unemployed and their treatment.
It has been said that every section of this House is capable of putting its views. I will not deny that, but the fact is that, whether you like it or like it not, hon. Members of the Labour party have put their views, some of them with great capacity, on this Bill. Hon. Members of the Liberal party have put their views. I have been unemployed, but it was 10 or 12 years ago, and I cannot speak now as the present unemployed would speak. Twelve years of comfort make me different in some way. I try to keep my sense of reality, but I want someone to come who is unemployed now, someone fresh, someone whom the reality is hitting at the moment as nothing else can hit him. While hon. Members have done their work, and done it with skill, I hope I shall not be taken to depreciate them in any way when I say that they are not men fresh from the Employment Exchange, fresh from the means test, fresh from watching their children grow on two shillings a week. My brother-in-law at home has children; they meet me, but I can never tell as they can what their two shillings means. They know it. Why should they not come to the Bar and picture to you and me something that is not fancy, but the reality of a child's growth and its life?
That is what they ask, but they also ask that the Cabinet shall meet them. I remember a great man, and I hope that I am not disparaging the present occupant of his office. That man has his critics, but he occupied that post with great ability in the days before I was politically active. I refer to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George). I remember him in the days when he controlled the Cabinet. In those days the Cabinet met deputations of working people who were threatened with trade disputes, and negotiated with them. That was never
from weakness on his part, but every time he did it, instead of being weaker, he was stronger, because he could meet them and face them like a man. Now we ask that the Prime Minister should meet them. I remember that the Prime Minister said, when he held the position of Prime Minister under the Labour Government, that while unemployment was partly a job for the Minister of Labour, it was so widespread in its treatment and its scope and everything about it, that it was the Government's job and that the Prime Minister was responsible for it. It affected every Department. It was affected by schemes of work.
Therefore, we come to the humble request granted by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Burghs, not once but many times. These men come and say, "We, the workless, if we cannot get there, and if we cannot meet the 20 men, surely we can meet the Prime Minister of this country?" They ask, "Has not the Prime Minister the time to see us? Has he not some of his time to spare?" I hope that I am not disparaging foreign affairs, but when these simple men have seen that the Prime Minister has gone here and there, they say, "Why cannot he give us a little of his time as well as viewing foreign nations? Why cannot he give us just an hour to talk things over?" Some among these poor men are young and in the bloom of youth, and others of them took part in another march. They marched when the Prime Minister of this country welcomed them and they went to fight in other lands. To-day these men, rightly or wrongly, whether misguided or correct, I care not, have taken part in another march, a human march.
I say that the Prime Minister, with his record, praised as it has been by many of those poor people instead of lowering the dignity of his office or in any way belittling the great post which he now holds, would have raised his prestige higher than has yet been known if he said to those poverty-stricken people, "You are not brewers, you are not rich, you are not bankers, you are nothing. You are poor men. I will meet you. I will discuss with you." He would have raised himself, and above all, his office, to a grandeur hitherto unknown.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the Motion. I am rather in the position of being ashamed of the attitude of the Prime Minister towards these unemployed men who have come here for the redress of their grievances and to appeal to the Prime Minister to be heard. An appeal was made to the Prime Minister to see those men, and then we had an appeal to the Cabinet to meet them. We were compelled to ask that a deputation should be received at the Bar in order that they should state their grievances there. The Prime Minister in his letter says that it is well known that these men are Communists explointing the unemployed for Communist purposes, or words to that effect. It can be said of every Member of Parliament in this House that he exploits bazaars, he exploits various football clubs, he exploits boxing matches, he exploits churches, he exploits almost every single angle in his Division in order to turn to his advantage votes during the election. The Prime Minister states that these men are being led by Communists. I want to say, in reply, that we had 396 men who left Glasgow and I have never seen since I entered the Labour movement, when I was 17 years of age, such a tremendous demonstration in that city of people who cheered the men. The men walked for 10 miles with 7,000 or 8,000 people walking beside them for the 10 miles, to wish them God speed on their journey.

Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: They only walked to Newton Mearns and then they took omnibuses.

Mr. McGOVERN: For 10 miles the people walked along with the men. Of the four men in the front rank one was a representative of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, sent by his branch as a delegate to the Congress; the second was a member of the Glasgow Town Council, and a member of the party to which I belong; the third was the organiser of the unemployed workers; and the fourth was myself. Among the 396 men there were Communists, Labour party supporters, members of the Independent Labour party, trade unionists, men who belonged to no political party in this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Samuelites."] I do not think they were Samuelites. They might have been supporters of the National Government,
because they were told it was a non-party Government.
They left Glasgow in order to come here to the seat of Government to make representations to the Government concerning injustices that they feel and under which they exist. It is surely a legitimate line of activity for men to come to the seat of Government to make known their grievances. The only difference between rich and poor men is that rich men travel by rail and poor men travel by road. [HON. MEMBERS: "Buses!"] It is a poor joke to use with regard to men who have walked on route marches 520 miles to say that they have taken omnibuses. They took omnibuses for eight miles on a day when they were marching 28 miles over Shap. They took omnibuses for eight miles and marched for 20 miles. It would have been absolutely criminal to have taken them the whole of those 28 miles by road. [Interruption.] You are well fed and over-wined.

Mr. SPEAKER: We shall get on very much better without these interruptions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If you want a row you can have it.

Mr. McGOVERN: Rich men travel in first-class style, stay at first-class hotels, and make their way to Westminster to Cabinet Ministers and to the Government where they make their wishes known in regard to tariffs, or other concessions, or something off the Income Tax. These poor men come here in order to point out to the Government that their children are being done to death by scales which are insufficient to meet the needs of their children. They desired to see the Prime Minister, and he refused to meet them. On the last occasion when hunger marchers came to this city I went out of my way to present a petition to allow them to appear at the Bar of the House. I was turned down. On that occasion there was a tremendous amount of trouble in London. We who are associated with this march have attempted to explore every constitutional channel available. These men have come here and have attempted to see the Prime Minister. Why is it that he refuses to see them? Is he afraid to meet common working men and women who in the past have given support and allegiance to him? There are men in this march from Glasgow who were with me in 1918 when the Prime Minister
came to Glasgow to address a civil liberty conference.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to me to be going far beyond the Motion.

Mr. McGOVERN: I was citing this instance to show that these are people who in the past have backed the Prime Minister, and are not Communists. Civil liberties are at stake now. At that time many of these people had faith in the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: History does not really apply to this case.

Mr. McGOVERN: I only want to advance the case that constitutional channels have been explored and that these men are now being turned down in their approach through constitutional channels. The Prime Minister has always advised them to take this line of advance. He has always said to them "Have faith in constitutionalism within the limits of British democracy; there is the same opportunity for the crossing sweeper as for the man of wealth and leisure to manifest his point of view." These working men and women who have come to London to see the Prime Minister have been slandered by the Press and by the Prime Minister, and when they desire to interview him to put their grievances before him he shelters himself behind the phrase of the people being communistically led. I suggest that that is not the reason at all. If there was a personal touch, if these men and women who are living in misery and poverty could feel that a personal interest was being taken in their sufferings by the head of the State, and that consideration is being given to their grievances, then at least they would feel some comfort and security in the knowledge that they have manifested their grievance to those who are running the affairs of the State.
I remember on one occasion, when a deputation talked of coming to London, that the late Mr. Bonar Law said, "I will go down to Glasgow and meet the unemployed there." He did meet the unemployed there; he heard their grievances, he made a note of them, and promised consideration of the points that they put to him. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he ought to remember that he himself, in the past, has urged men
to go along that constitutional approach. I am bound to say here that even though this is in my estimation a National Government, I would much rather that a Conservative Prime Minister out and out were being approached by the hunger marchers on this occasion. I believe that a Conservative Prime Minister would have less hesitation in meeting the unemployed than a man who had formerly been a Socialist and had turned Conservative, because the Conservative Prime Minister would be confident that he had the backing of his supporters and members of the Government. There is always inclined to be a fear in the mind of a man who has belonged to another party that he must outdo the Conservatives in their attitude towards working men and women with whom he has been associated in the past.
I am going to make an appeal not only to the Prime Minister but to those who are associated with him as members of the Government. I say to them, What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid to meet men who are hunger-marchers? I have marched with them. I have eaten with them. I have slept with them in public halls, in churches, in schools and in workhouses. I know that no person has ever associated with a finer body of men than those who have come from Scotland to air their grievances here. Surely at this time of day you are not seriously urging that because some men may be Communists they have no right of political approach to you at all? If you are the Prime Minister of a National Government that is supposed to know no party, then men, whether Communists, Labourists, Conservatives, Liberals, or men of no party, are all entitled to come to you and make their representations.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would do better to address me.

Mr. McGOVERN: I feel that my case is so just, that I am anxious not to do anything that is out of order. I simply content myself now by appealing to the Prime Minister and the Government to give reconsideration to the question of this approach to them. I say to the Prime Minister personally, "Do not take up the attitude that because you have refused to meet these marchers you must persist in a refusal to meet them. I ask you to reconsider your attitude, to be big enough and generous enough and humane
enough to say to these men that they have a right to state their personal experiences and suffering and injustice to you."
Although we are elected Members of this House and know a tremendous amount about the personal suffering that is going on in the country, we cannot speak from intimate knowledge of the details, because we are not undergoing the suffering which these men are undergoing at the moment. The working men and women who are here could put their point of view more directly. They could put the matter in a new light, and probably give you knowledge which you do not possess up to the moment. I appeal to you, even at this late hour, to be big enough to extend to these men the right to be heard. I ask you to hear their grievances and allow them to go back to the country with the promise that you will give reconsideration to the points laid before you.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: When the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) this afternoon asked the leave of the House to introduce this Motion, my hon. Friends and I on these benches rose in his support. I do not think that the question at issue this evening is a question as to whether it was wise for these men to march, or a question of whether they are led by this set of men or that. The fact remains that you have here in London a body of men who have marched from various districts and who by admission of independent witnesses of every kind have behaved with perfect order. We have the testimony, too, of entirely independent witnesses that these men are fair representatives of the great mass of the unemployed of this country, that is to say, of people who are experiencing unmerited suffering. I think you have to look at what is behind these men. I do not think that the Prime Minister would doubt, if he had had the time to attend Debates in the House on the Unemployment Bill, that the realisation of the injustices from which these men and women are suffering at the present time is now appreciated very widely in all parts of the House, and that the feeling is tremendous in the country. There is also an ever-increasing volume of opinion that the unemployment problem should be grappled with. Here we have an appeal
that men should be heard at the Bar. You may argue or not about precedents for that. They also demand to be heard by the Prime Minister. There is plenty of precedent for that. I can see no reason whatever why they should not be received by the Prime Minister. I think there is no reason why they should not be received by the Cabinet. After all, one Cabinet Minister says that the Government have mastered unemployment. If that is so, the unemployed ought to know how it is being done. If it is not so, perhaps they would disabuse the minds of the Members of the Government of such an illusion. Unemployment is not mastered to-day. It is the biggest question still that this country has to face. The Lord President of the Council said that the Government would fall that could not deal with unemployment. He said that his own Government would fall if it could not deal with unemployment. The great mass of unemployment, the long-term unemployment, the problem of the distressed areas—all this has not been dealt with, and is not being dealt with and there is no doubt whatever that the iron is entering into the souls of many of our fellow-citizens. Therefore, we support this protest.

11.20 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I make no apology for intervening in this Debate. I think the majority of backbenchers who support the Government are glad that it has occurred in order that we can make the position clear as regards that great body of unemployed men whom we represent in the country who are not victims of this tragic farce which we are discussing to-night, also in fairness to the back bench Members who comprise the great majority of the present House of Commons and who represent their unemployed without having to resort to the support of such tactics as we have seen in the hunger march. No people can claim a monopoly of sorrow for or sympathy with the unemployed, as apparently would be the possession of the hon. Members above me here and above the Gangway. There is not a single Member of the House of Commons, I am sure, who has not got at heart the desire to help the unemployed in his particular way, whether or not we differ as to the methods, but our chief object differs from the object of the hon. Mem-
bers who support this hunger march. Our chief object is to get men back into permanent and honest work, and did we feel that the march which is advocated, and the appearance of the hunger marchers at the Bar or before the Cabinet were in any way going to help the unemployed, I do not believe there would be a single hon. Member in the present House who would not support it, but let us look the facts in the face. Not a single man who is unemployed at the present time will be put back into work, or will be helped really and substantially by any such move as the hon. Members suggest. How many of these hunger marchers whom the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) desires to come before the Bar of the House really know anything concrete about the Measure to condemn which they carry banners? I looked at the hunger marchers' banners and saw "Scrap the Unemployment Bill," "Wipe it away." How many members of the hunger march whom the hon. Members want to see here know what Part I and Part II of the Bill mean?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member asks a question, and there is a simple answer. I should say that on the average they know as much as, if not more than, the average Member of this House who is voting for the Bill.

Captain BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Gorbals is judging the standard of those who comprise the hunger march by his own standard, not by the standard of hon. Members of the Opposition above the Gangway, one of whom, the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I heard making a speech yesterday and talking of the insurance principles in Part II of the Bill. When you get that sort of thing, I suggest that the House would better judge the standard of knowledge rather as that of the hon. Member for Silvertown, who was speaking for the Opposition, than the very particular knowledge of the hon. Member for Gorbals, which we all acknowledge. The policy which those who would come to the Bar of the House of Commons or to the Cabinet advocate would reduce those very men and their dependants to a far worse state than they are in at present.

Mr. MAXTON: You do not know. You have not listened to it.

Captain BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) says that I have not listened, but we had a little bit between 1929 and 1931, and we do not want a continuation of that particular policy which was so ardently supported, and now the hon. Member for Bridgeton is resorting to the old tactics, which he is so particular that other Members should not pursue, of interrupting the sequence of an argument.

Mr. MAXTON: My hon. and gallant Friend must not make that charge against me. There is no man in this House who is more consistently interrupted than I am and who more courteously gives way.

Captain BALFOUR: There is no man who is more consistently interrupted and who gives way more, but who nevertheless courteously more claims his rights to continue his line of argument, and therefore objects naturally to consistent interruptions. The hon. Member for Bridgeton with his much greater Parliamentary experience than mine or many other Members, would, I should have thought, at least take his medicine. He may not like it, but he is jolly well going to take it. The very policy which these people advocate would reduce these men to a state of desperation which we who support the Government are not going to allow if we can possibly help it. The capture of the capitalist citadel, which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and his colleagues advocate in their book, and which is advocated by those who would come to the Bar of the House of Commons, is a foolish doctrine, and it would be a waste of time of the Government to hear it when they are making valuable efforts in other directions. The trouble really is that if hon. Members had their way there would be no capitalist citadel to capture. It would be gone before they could make their attempt. The only advertisement that has really been given is to the tragedy of the unemployed and the Communist party.
The united front, as far as I understand, now consists of those who stood up this afternoon and supported this Motion. They consisted of those hon. Members who are always sincere and consistent, the hon. Member for Bridgeton, the hon. Member for Gorbals and the others; and now the hon. Members of the Labour party and their new allies the
Liberals who stood up with them. I do not blame the Liberal party. But I blame the leader of the Liberal group, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). That group is like a row of ninepins. When one gets up they all get up; when one sits down, they all sit down. What I deplored was the support for this Motion of the right hon. Member for Darwen, an ex-Home Secretary, who was His Majesty's principal Secretary of State, responsible not so long ago for law and order in this country. I deplored his getting up and supporting something which could do no earthly good to any unemployed man, and is only an incitement to mutiny and to civil disorder by the worst section of the populace of the Metropolis. We all know what happened last year when the comparatively few and tragic set of hunger marchers came to London. There were regrettable disturbances, caused not so much by the hunger marchers as by the camp-followers and the hangers-on. The right hon. Gentleman when he stood up this afternoon advocated the hearing at the Bar—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—advocated this Debate and therefore, presumably advocated that the Government should accede to the request that the hunger marchers should come to the Bar. If the Liberal party support the Motion for the Debate and then say they do not want the marchers to come to the Bar, the complexities of the Liberal party are beyond even our comprehension. It is their advocacy that encourages quite definitely these men who are in London, tragically here at the present time, in their hopes that they can get some redress and some amelioration of their present lot.
I would submit two things to the House: first that it is an insult to a great number of Members of the present House of Commons, or, alternatively, it is an admission of incompetency by the hon. Members who are sponsoring this move. There is not one of us here who would not see in his constituency, at the request of the local unemployed men, representatives of the unemployed movement and hear their particular grievances. What is the need of coming to London? But if any unemployed in our divisions wanted to see us, and did not wish to talk to us in our constituencies, they could come to us in Parliament. They
would have a perfectly constitutional right to come here, as we all in this House would admit, to see us in the normal course of events. But I do say that if 12 people from my constituency, or the constituency of any other hon. Member came to see us, we should not expect the Prime Minister also to receive them or that they should have the right to come to the Bar of the House of Commons. It is perfectly reasonable for us as Members of Parliament to hear representations from our constituents and then make representations, as we have a perfect right to do to the various Members of the Government.
This move is not only an insult to us, but a reflection on the hon. Members above the Gangway and those who support them, as an admission that they are unable to represent effectually their own unemployed, that they feel incapable of representing the unemployed in their own Divisions. Let it go out from this House that they feel incapable of representing to the Government the distress of their own people. The hon. Member for Gorbals says they are incapable. If they were proper representatives of the unemployed they would follow the course, first, of hearing the representations of their own unemployed and, secondly, of supporting a policy which would get those unemployed back into permanent work. It is fortunate that every one in the present House of Commons is not either so foolish or so gullible, or, if not foolish or gullible, so weak as to copy the weaknesses which the hon. Members show who are sponsoring this Motion to-night. I, personally, and I believe, the vast majority of the back benchers here heartily support the Government's determination to succour the unemployed in the best way—that is getting them back to work by the best means possible, and by the Unemployment Bill; and we should not listen to minority representations that can do no great good but only harm to that vast body whom we are here to help, and are determined to help.

11.34 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I feel that every hon. Member who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the speeches which followed must feel that it is right that the House of Commons should discuss this topic; and, when the hon. Members
below me this afternoon, in a perfectly orderly and courteous manner, asked the leave of the House to bring forward this matter, and when you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that it came within the Rule that it was a matter of urgent and public importance, I felt strongly that it would not be right for the House of Commons to refuse even an opportunity for allowing the claim to be heard. No one can say that the grievances of these men, who have walked to this city from many parts of this Island, are trivial or imaginary. The whole world is suffering from a grave depression; all classes in this country suffer from it. The well-to-do suffer from a diminution of income and from an increase of taxation; others see their savings gradually disappear. But no one suffers anything in comparison with those hundreds of thousands of men and women who have to live, month in, month out, and some of them year in, year out, on 15s. 3d. a week—with 8s. for a wife and 2s. for a child.
There are 500,000 people, so the monthly figures published by the Labour Department tell us, who have been out of work for a whole year without a single week of wage earning. In other countries, or in this country in other times, these conditions would have given rise to serious disorders, destruction of property and rioting by way of protest. Our fellow citizens have maintained a perfectly orderly, constitutional attitude. These men, who have been brought from all over the country, have been guilty of no disorder; those who have given them hospitality pay the highest tribute to their behaviour. What should they do, other than what they have done, if they want to draw the attention of the nation to their plight, to stir this nation out of what is really a shameful complacency, and to protest against the utterly inadequate measures that have so far been taken? Are we to say to them, "If you are disorderly, we cannot listen to you; it would be to encourage disorder. If you are orderly, we need not listen to you"? It is precisely because I have twice held the high office of Home Secretary that I feel it incumbent upon me to take the course which I have taken. It has been my duty, when occasion required, to take responsibility for repressing disorder. Elsewhere, when I was High Commissioner in a mandated territory, I had a far more dangerous
situation to face, and I did not flinch from taking whatever repressive measures were necessary at the time—and should do so again in this country or wherever it might be, in similar circumstances. If there is disorder, it is the business of Ministers to suppress it; if it is threatened, to prevent it. Where there is no disorder, it is incumbent upon them to show a spirit of friendship and of good will. It is a profound error to think that the duty of a Home Secretary, or of any Minister, or any Government, or any Parliament, is merely repressive. It is our task, whenever opportunity calls for it, or when it is besought, to show, as I say, a spirit of friendship and of co-operation.
These men have walked from the far ends of this country—hundreds of miles, no light undertaking—from Glasgow, from South Wales. I think it would have been right for the Prime Minister, or for some Minister, to have received their spokesmen and to have heard their complaints. It would have been a kindly and a gracious act. I do not support the proposal that they should be received here at the Bar of this House. That is an old Parliamentary procedure which has fallen into desuetude, and which it is not advisable to revive. It is not an effective procedure, and, if a precedent were set up in one case, it would be difficult to refuse it in others. But I do feel, and feel strongly, that they should be received, seeing that on this occasion there was neither disorder nor threat of disorder. It is said that they are Communists, and that therefore they ought to be ignored. Let us not attach so much importance to labels, but see the realities behind the name. There is not here, and everyone knows it, any deliberate plan or attempt to overturn society. This march is nothing more than a protest, a bitter cry. They say to us: "Hear us; see us; help us." It is that and nothing more. If any one of us had been living for a year or two in the conditions of these people, on that income, with so little hope for the future, I am not sure that we should have been as patient as they.
It is said that these men are not representative of the whole body of the unemployed. Perhaps not, but there is no one else to represent them; there is no other organisation that speaks urgently in their name. So I say that this House of
Commons should not turn a deaf ear to them, and certainly not refuse to allow a discussion to take place on the propriety of their spokesmen being received. This is the House of Commons; it is the common people's own House; that is its origin, its function, its purpose, its strength, its greatness; and it would be a bad day for Britain if the working people of this country, or any section of them, were to have reason to regard this as a class assembly, alien from them, aloof from them, indifferent to their sufferings. A wise governing body will at least listen. These men have come, many hundreds of them, tired, footsore, here to the capital of the country, to the seat of Government. Let them not go back feeling that every door is barred against them, every window shuttered, and, what is worse, every heart closed against them. Government and Parliament would be wise to wish them well and to show that we are anxious to help them.

11.43 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): If this Debate had been caused by the Government showing any ground for an attack being made upon it because it was not interested in unemployment, because it did not understand the terrible strain on heart and body that had driven many of these working men into hunger marches and so on, then some of the speeches that have been delivered, like the last one, might have been justified. There is no Member of the Labour party in this House who is under any illusion as to why the Government was unable to see representatives of this last march. They know perfectly well that there is no division of opinion regarding unemployment, no desire but to face strenuously the problem in all its complicated context and to find solutions for it. They know perfectly well that when the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to sneers, that is not true; and they know also, because they themselves have already taken action of a precisely similar character, the issues that a Government has to face when presented with an appeal at once almost overwhelmingly human and also absolutely impossible—that when the Government decides that it cannot, however strong its wishes may be, receive deputations, it is not that its decision has
been arrived at without any reference to the merits of the claims of the men who would have been included in the deputation. When the Government of 1929 was asked to receive such a deputation the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) proved to the House that it could not be done.

Mr. MAXTON: Were you asking for it then?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Who was asking for it?

The PRIME MINISTER: It was being asked for by the Members of the Opposition before the election.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Led by you.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me. Will he enlighten the House a little more on the incident to which he has referred?

The PRIME MINISTER: Hon. Members who are interested will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a hunger march in London, and a request was made to the Government of which he was a Member (1) that a deputation should be allowed to address the House at the Bar, (2) that the Cabinet should receive a deputation, (3) that the Prime Minister should receive a deputation. The right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, resisted that appeal made in the form of a question to him, and requests made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and others. Every Government that has been in office since these marches were resorted to has received these requests and has refused them, and not only that but requests of a similar nature made to the Trades Union Congress have been refused. The Trades Union Congress has been asked ever since 1928 to receive deputations from this political body that is behind the organisation of these marches. The Trades Union Congress refused in 1928, in 1930, 1931 and 1932, and last year at Brighton, after the General Purposes Committee of the Congress had interviewed two delegates, they recommended that Congress should not receive the marchers, and Congress decided not to receive them. Regarding
this present march, certain trades councils on the way asked for guidance. What was the attitude of organised Labour? What was the attitude of the Trades Union movement? That guidance, at any rate in one case, was given:
There is no indication that this march has the support of unions affiliated to the Congress, and, as you are aware, the Congress itself has repeatedly refused to hear deputations from this body which have visited the Congress more than once during the session. In these circumstances, the General Council do not recommend that support be given by your trades council.
What is the explanation? It is perfectly simple. These marches have been organised by a body notorious for the attempts that it has made to spread unconstitutional agitation and propaganda in this country. It has done its best to disrupt organised Labour and has taken every possible opportunity to destroy the constitutional political movement in this country. It has taken and has used these marches as one of the methods of its equipment.

Mr. McGOVERN: You destroyed it more than they did.

The PRIME MINISTER: So much for organised Labour; what about Governments? In 1929 the Government of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. CHURCHILL: You were in it too.

The PRIME MINISTER: —refused this application, and had the support of the right hon. Member for Epping. Then there was a change in Government. There was another hunger march; they asked that a deputation of 20 marchers should be received by the Minister of Labour, Miss Margaret Bondfield, with the help of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for the Dominions, Sir Oswald Mosley, and the Leader of the Opposition. Consultations took place, the whole party was consulted, and the combined decision of Ministers and party was communicated in the following letter:
I am directed by the Prime Minister to refer to your letter of the 28th April, and to inform you that he and his colleagues are unable to accede to your request that they should receive a deputation.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that there was a very
good reason for that decision. They went further in those days and were a little more accommodating. The deputation asked to be received by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. It actually went to the Ministry of Health and was refused. It locked itself in a room in order to demonstrate its wishes by semi-constitutional methods. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman taking umbrage and making fine distinctions because we have refused to receive them. I put this question without any offence: Are hon. Members sincere in trying to find some way out of this unemployment problem? If so, do they believe that, by getting the National Unemployed Workers Movement to organise marches from John o' Groats to Lands End, concentrating upon a point, placing a great strain upon those overburdened people responsible for the maintenance of public order, and bringing the marchers up with more or less hidden threats that if they were not received there would be trouble—it would take a very great and minute examination to find the difference between what I have said and what was said in 1929—do they really mean to tell this House that, by getting these marchers up here, by getting three or four or five of them to stand at that Bar to pour out their hearts to us—because that is what would happen—the time of this House, from any practical point of view, will be used with any effect? Have we had no Bill before us dealing with unemployment? Are we, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, very oddly from him in relation to his past association with us, said, a mere handful of complacent Ministers on social affairs? It may be that we in our supineness, we in our comforts, for we have them—what the hon. Member said is perfectly true; he said that he was unemployed; so was I—but I want to say to those Members of this House who never have been unemployed, that they have no idea of the wound and scar of unemployment in a man's soul and how absolutely impossible it is for him during the rest of his life to forget it.
When people talk about constitutional rights I wish they would talk about them with some accuracy. If anyone who cares to come here either in the way the hon. Member described as arriving in a first-class carriage or after having slept in public halls or elsewhere thinks that he
has a constitutional right to demand to see me and take up my time, whether I like it or not, then I say that he has nothing of the kind. If the individual is multiplied fifty-fold, if I am requested to see a deputation of 30 people elected by a congress of action plus 20 people representing the marchers, making a total of 50, and they think that they have a constitutional right to compel me to see them, then I say that they are much mistaken; they have no such right. If there is anything approaching a constitutional right in this matter it is the right which Mr. Bonar Law's constituents got from him by his own free will. When people from his own constituency who were suffering from unemployment wished to come to London to see him, he said, "No, I will come up and see you"; and he did so, and also, I understand, electors from a neighbouring constituency at the same time. Four or five weeks ago I had a request to see a deputation, not from my own constituency, but from a constituency adjoining, and, like Mr. Bonar Law, I said that I was going up to my own constituency and that while I was there I did not mind. Mr. Bonar Law was asked by a national gathering to receive a deputation. He said, "No." Therefore, in both cases I am following in the footsteps of Mr. Bonar Law. There is another side of the case. I think that it is merely trifling with the distress caused by unemployment to induce people to come marching to London implying by the invitation that they can force the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the House of Commons to see them. It is crazy. I would far rather say, "I am sorry, unemployment is baffling me; I have done my best, and I cannot find a solution." I would rather go up to them and, if they say, "Let us march to London," say, "No, that is not going to help."
A different type of mind, a different mentality, a different enthusiasm is required to meet these problems and to solve them. With all these fundamental objections, no Prime Minister and no Government ought to give countenance to these proceedings and these methods, inspired and controlled by subversive political forces and made all the more tragic because the bulk of the men and women in the march are not consciously associated with such things. That is the trouble. It is a nice and an easy job for
the hon. Member to describe the men who have come, and to some extent I agree with him, but that is not the reality. What these marches are meant to subserve is the stirring up of hatred, trouble and difficulties. Whatever and wherever I have been and whatever I have said I have never uttered a word or done anything to condone that sort of thing. There the Front Bench opposite has taken its stand, there my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, took his stand, and in taking our stand there once again I am convinced that we do a far better service to the mass of the unemployed in this country than if we had chosen to receive these deputations.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we have had this opportunity of debating an important question, at least we can thank you for making it possible to divide the House on this issue. If I may say so without offence, I think a very large proportion of the Prime Minister's speech was irrelevant and contained a delving into the past which would not have been permitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). In the later stages he outlined his political philosophy as against mine and as against that of these men, a topic on which I should very readily enter into debate with him at another time. That is a point of view which puts him where he is and puts me here; but it is not the subject that we have brought before the House to-night. The subject before us is the right of these men to be heard. The very fact that their political outlook is different from that of the Prime Minister is a very strong reason why he should hear them. If it was the same as his, there would be no need for them to come to him or for him to go to them. If it was the same outlook as that of the Trades Union Congress there would be no need to offer to go there. It is because they have a different point of view that the need arises.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) has left the House. His speech and the speech of the Prime Minister condemned a statement of views which they have not had an opportunity of studying. That seems to me to be a
very severe criticism of the way they take their public duties. These men prepared for months a carefully-reasoned case, a series of proposals for dealing with their situation, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman never saw that case. Nor has the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister ever seen that case. He merely says, "These men are extremists, and therefore we will not listen to their case." That is an indication of the Prime Minister's great "democratic principles." He says that these men are in London to provoke disorder. I aided these men right from the start. I took a responsible place on the council that organised the march. I did that because I would rather see these men marching and agitating, keeping manhood and virility in them, than see them have the spirit crushed out of them and become mere creeping, crawling creatures. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman decides to do, I will help that movement, and continue to help it to be a fighting, virile movement of men, rather than the crushed creatures that the Unemployment Bill would make them. I will keep them men of independence; I will keep them men with the spirit of fight in them.
Suppose that the Prime Minister refuses to hear them. When the right hon. Gentleman says that they are attempting to create disorder, I want him to look round about him on his own side of the House. On the right of him sits the Lord President of the Council, who in 1926 was Prime Minister of this country. Below the Gangway is the right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days. To the left of him until a minute ago was the Secretary of State for the Dominions, one of the leaders of the Trades Union Congress on the eve of the 1926 general strike. These men were not merely threatening disorder; they had disorder planned. The present Prime Minister was the spokesman in this House. We debated the question of the general strike in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, then Prime Minister, were ready to discuss with these rebels who were creating or threatening to create disorder, and were threatening to bring the whole life of the nation to a standstill. The right hon. Gentlemen kept in contact with them to the eleventh hour of
the last day, and only broke off discussions with them when the first blow had been struck in the "war."
The Prime Minister makes play about the question of what are constitutional rights. I am not going to bother about constitutional rights. I am going to bother about democratic principles; and the basis of democracy is meeting the people and discussing with them. The basis of autocracy is, "Do not listen to reason; crush the voice of the other fellow." That is autocracy. That is what the Prime Minister announced from that Box to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say yes. The right hon. Gentleman says, "The voice of these unemployed marchers is a voice we do not like." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, yes; that is what he says. He says, "We will not listen to it." That is autocracy. Democracy says, "That man has a view that is antagonistic to mine. I will meet him and argue with him, and persuade him that his view is wrong and that my view is right." To-day, we have got from the democratic Prime Minister, the man thrown up by the people, the man who probably more than any other person on that side of the House has come from the bottom—

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: We have all been "thrown up by the people."

Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lord will not claim that he is of the proletariat.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: ; I have been thrown up by the people as a Member of this House.

Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lord will not claim that he has been thrown up from such great depths to such lofty heights as the Prime Minister.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: No, not to such lofty heights, certainly. At the same time, in my humble way, I have been thrown up.

Mr. MAXTON: I award the Noble Lord full marks for his interruption. I admit he has made his point. He has been thrown up. I am sure he will accept my assurance that it is not through any personal dislike to him that I say it, but if I have my will he will be thrown out by the people. But here is the Prime Minister whom the people of this country have thrown up in the
course of the last quarter of a century, on the basis that he was a great democrat, and he says to us, "I am not going to reason any more. Reason, argument, discussion?—yes, while I was getting there, while I was in opposition, while I was an agitator at the street corner. But now—" I wonder does he know that the men who came down with me to Downing Street to-day are men who have fought in physical combat to preserve for him the right of free speech? I wonder does he know that there were men with me to-day who took the last pence out of their pockets to make his political leadership possible in this country? He says now, "I am in 10, Downing Street. You are unemployed; you are extremists. I am sitting here—" [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he said to-night, "You are extremists. You represent the extreme political view." That was the only reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave at that Despatch Box to-night, for not receiving these men—that and the fact that others had refused to do so. He said, in effect: "You hold extreme views. Therefore, I will not

listen to you." I say that it is not right, that it is not decent, and I do not believe that in the long run it is in the best interests of this nation. Why should the Prime Minister of any Government that has been in this country since the War, stand on any lofty pedestal and say to anybody: "You cannot tell us how to cure unemployment. We know it all?" Nobody in this House can turn round and say that, because the failure of the best of us, even to make a mark on the unemployment problem, is so obvious, in the sight of all men, that we ought to walk very humbly and be prepared to listen to any voice which makes any suggestion for dealing with that problem. I know that the things that I have to say will fall on deaf ears so far as the majority of this House are concerned, but I hope that there is a sufficient minority who, realising the opportunity presented to us to preserve the rights of democracy in this country, will go into the Lobby in support of this Motion.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 270.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[12.22 a.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Rea, Walter Russell


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rothschild, James A. de


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. McGovern and Mr. Buchanan.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Burnett, John George


Albery, Irving James
Blindell, James
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bossom, A. C.
Caine, G. R. Hali-


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Apsley, Lord
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Carver, Major William H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanst)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Coifox, Major William Philip


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Browne, Captain A. C.
Colman, N. C. D.


Bateman, A. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Craven-Ellis, William


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Crooke, J. Smedley


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)


Cross, R. H.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Robinson, John Roland


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Doran, Edward
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runge, Norah Cecil


Drewe, Cedric
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Edge, Sir William
Loftus, Plerce C.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Salt, Edward W.


Elmley, Viscount
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, William
Savery, Samuel Servington


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetiaw)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Everard, W. Lindsay
McKle, John Hamilton
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Fleming, Edward Lascelies
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Flint, Abraham John
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smithers, Waldron


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Magnay, Thomas
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fox, Sir Gifford
Maitland, Adam
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Soper, Richard


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Goldie, Noel B.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spens, William Patrick


Gower, Sir Robert
Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stevenson, James


Graves, Marjorie
Milne, Charles
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Greene, William P. C.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Stones, James


Grigg, Sir Edward
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Storey, Samuel


Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Strauss, Edward A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morgan, Robert H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrls-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Munro, Patrick
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Harbord, Arthur
North, Edward T.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Train, John


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.
Tree, Ronald


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, Charles U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny, Sir George
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hepworth, Joseph
Percy, Lord Eustace
Turton, Robert Hugh


Holdsworth, Herbert
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Weymouth, Viscount


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Radford, E. A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, Roland
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wise, Alfred R.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Womersley, Walter James


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rankin, Robert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr.
SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before One o'Clock.